scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective

01 Mar 2019-Journal of Business Ethics (Springer Netherlands)-Vol. 155, Iss: 3, pp 703-721
TL;DR: In this paper, an analysis of the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality and the limitations of sustainability reports and their recommendations to improve them using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a framework is presented.
Abstract: This article presents, an analysis of the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality and the limitations of sustainability reports and their recommendations to improve them using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a framework. The qualitative content analysis of 301 assurance statements for sustainability reports from mining and energy companies provides a comprehensive view of the main outcomes of the assurance process, including its limitations, the application of the GRI principles and suggestions for improving sustainability reports. Taking into account the perceptions of practitioners a priori well informed on the quality of sustainability reports—namely assurance providers—this paper complements the current literature on sustainability reporting and its assurance, including critical approaches that question the reliability of sustainability reports, stakeholder engagement and the accountability of reporting practices. This study contributes to the debates surrounding the quality of sustainability reports, the added value of assurance statements and the ethical issues underlying the assurance process. It also contains important practical implications for auditors, standardization organizations and stakeholders.

Summary (2 min read)

Introduction

  • Sustainability reporting has become a mainstream practice in the communication of corporate commitment to and performance on sustainability issues (Fonseca et al., 2014; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Junior et al., 2014; Perego and Kolk, 2012).
  • Finally, by investigating the outcomes of assurance statements through the lens of the GRI principles for the content and quality of reports, it is possible to shed further light on reporting organizations’ compliance with these principles and the extent to which they are seriously taken into account by assurance providers themselves.
  • First, the literature on the assurance of sustainability reports and its contribution to the reliability of reporting practices is described.

The assurance of sustainability reports

  • Instilling confidence in sustainability reporting Sustainability reporting has been defined as “the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance towards the goal of sustainable development” (GRI, 2006, p.3).
  • A third party assurance process is generally considered to be the main response to restore or enhance public confidence in these reports (De Beelde and Tuybens, 2015; IansenRogers and Oelschlaegel, 2005; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Manetti and Becatti, 2009; Park and Brorson, 2005).
  • These aspects are frequently addressed in the statements which, according to the assurance standard AA1000, are based on “a set of findings, conclusions and recommendations” (AccountAbility, 2008, p. 21).
  • Since nearly half of assurance statements seems to contain specific recommendations for the reporting company (Gürtürk and Hahn, 2015), the analysis of this type of information through a large sample of statements seems relevant to shed further light on the quality of sustainability reporting in the eyes of auditors.
  • Similarly, the literature on assurance statements has not focused on the limitations of reports and recommendations for improvement, although the existence of these elements has been briefly mentioned in a few studies (Ball et al., 2000; Deegan et al., 2006; Gürtürk and Hahn, 2015; Junior et al., 2014; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Manetti and Becatti, 2009).

Methods

  • The objective of this study is to analyze the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality, the limitations and the recommendations to improve GRI-based sustainability reports in the mining and energy sectors.
  • More specifically, regarding the data analysis methodology, qualitative content analysis of statements was used.
  • The study focused on sustainability reports from the mining and energy sectors published between 2006 and 2013 with an A+ application level of the G3 GRI framework.
  • As a result, the sample of this study included most GRI G3 reports with the A+ application level published in the mining and energy sectors before the introduction of the G4 version.
  • To facilitate data analysis, all reports selected were in English and included a statement from assurance providers.

Findings

  • The main outcomes of the assurance process Assurance statements may cover various themes, including the criteria for report presentation, the objectives of the assurance process, the scope of verification and information on assurance providers.
  • This proportion seems relatively low considering that the raison d’être of assurance statements is to improve the credibility of sustainability reports in the eyes of stakeholders and to better respond to their concerns (GRI, 2006; Gürtürk and Hahn, 2015; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012; O’Dwyer et al., 2011).
  • The degree of completeness that can be expected from sustainability reports is unclear.
  • These recommendations cover various aspects such as dialogue with stakeholders (Midland Power, 2011), procedures to identify key stakeholders (Bharat Petroleum, 2008; Lihir Gold, 2010; Sesa Goa, 2011), clear descriptions of stakeholder engagement (Novatek, 2011) or enhancement of stakeholder responsiveness (Korea Midland Power, 2011).
  • Improvements to the frequency and rigor of this process (De Beers, 2007; Vedanta Resources, 2013), involvement of each reporting unit (Hess Corporation, 2012) and the management of the sustainability database (Xstrata, 2007) have been highlighted.

Discussion

  • The objective of this study was to analyze the quality of sustainability reports, their limitations and avenues for improvement from the perspective of the assurance providers in charge of the verification of those reports.
  • Conversely, important criticisms related to the GRI principles that have been stressed in the literature, such as the lack of balance and comparability of reports (Boiral and Henri, 2015; Cho and Patten, 2007; Cho et al., 2015; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014; Talbot and Boiral, 2015), are very rarely mentioned in the assurance statements.
  • First, this study sheds more light on the conclusions of assurance statements through a content analysis of a large sample, and it is focused on issues that have been overlooked in the literature.
  • Generally speaking, the compatibility between reporting and verification standards should be improved to encourage more substantial verification, particularly on issues that tend to be overlooked by assurance providers, such as the sustainability context, the balance of reports and the comparability of information.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

!
1!
Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditor's
perspective
Olivier Boiral, Département de management, Faculté des sciences de l'administration, Université
Laval, Québec, Canada
Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business
Studies, University of the Basque Country UPV-EHU, San Sebastian, Spain
Marie-Christine Brotherton, Département de management, Faculté des sciences de
l'administration, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
Accepté pour publication dans : Journal of Business Ethics, 2017.
Abstract
This article presents an analysis of the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality and
the limitations of sustainability reports and their recommendations to improve them using the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a framework. The qualitative content analysis of 301
assurance statements for sustainability reports from mining and energy companies provides a
comprehensive view of the main outcomes of the assurance process, including its limitations, the
application of the GRI principles and suggestions for improving sustainability reports. In taking
into account the perceptions of practitioners a priori well informed on the quality of
sustainability reports namely assurance providers this paper complements the current
literature on sustainability reporting and its assurance, including critical approaches that question
the reliability of sustainability reports, stakeholder engagement and the accountability of
reporting practices. This study contributes to the debates surrounding the quality of sustainability
reports, the added value of assurance statements and the ethical issues underlying the assurance
process. It also contains important practical implications for auditors, standardization
organizations and stakeholders.
Keywords: Sustainability reporting, assurance statements, auditing, accountability, GRI,
certification.
Introduction
Sustainability reporting has become a mainstream practice in the communication of corporate
commitment to and performance on sustainability issues (Fonseca et al., 2014; Hahn and Kühnen,
2013; Junior et al., 2014; Perego and Kolk, 2012). In 2015, more than 90% of the top 250 largest
companies worldwide published a sustainability report, most of them using the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) framework, which has become the reference model in this area (King and
Bartels, 2015). Nevertheless, the credibility and reliability of sustainability reporting have been
widely criticized in the literature (Cho et al., 2015; Gray, 2010; Milne et al., 2006; Moneva et al.,
2006). To address these criticisms and instill confidence in corporate reporting, an increasing
number of reports are being verified by assurance providers, which can be either accounting or
consulting firms.

!
2!
It is assumed that the assurance process demonstrates that sustainability reports and their
underlying reporting practices have been verified by independent auditors - also called assurance
providers - who share their conclusions on the quality and reliability of the information disclosed
(Dando and Swift, 2003; King and Bartels, 2015; Rasche and Esser, 2006). Assurance statements
also frequently comment on the limitations of the report and make recommendations as to how
the company might improve its reporting practices (Ball et al., 2000; Deegan et al., 2006; Gürtürk
and Hahn, 2015; Perego, 2009). Although the independence of assurance providers and the
quality of assurance statements have been criticized in the literature (Ball et al., 2000; Fonseca,
2010; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005, 2007; Park and Brorson, 2005),
most studies have highlighted the relevance and importance of the assurance process in
improving the credibility and reliability of sustainability reporting (Manetti and Toccafondi,
2012; Moroney et al., 2012; Simnett et al., 2009). This literature has contributed to a greater
understanding of the role of assurance providers in the legitimation of corporate sustainability
reporting. Nevertheless, the opinions of assurance providers on the quality, limitations and
improvement of sustainability reports have been largely overlooked.
This article presents an analysis, based on the content analysis of a large sample of assurance
statements, of the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality, the limitations and the
recommendations to improve GRI-based sustainability reports.
This study makes three main contributions to the sustainability reporting literature. First, it
contributes to the debates on the quality of sustainability reporting and stakeholder involvement.
The quality of sustainability reports can be defined as the transparency of information and
compliance with basic reporting principles such as materiality, stakeholder inclusiveness,
completeness, comparability, balance, accuracy, and reliability (GRI, 2013a). The literature on
this issue has mainly focused on the analysis of sustainability reports by researchers themselves
rather than the analysis of other experts, practitioners and interested parties. As a result, the
perceptions of stakeholders, including assurance providers, have not received sufficient attention
(Adams and Evans, 2004; Ball et al., 2000; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012; O’Dwyer and Owen,
2005, 2007). Although the independence of assurance providers is debatable, they are assumed to
be relatively well informed about corporate reporting practices and to publish statements that are
as rigorous and reliable as possible (Gilbert and Rasche, 2008; GRI, 2013a; Iansen-Rogers and
Oelschlaegel, 2005; King and Bartels, 2015). It can therefore be assumed that the analysis of a
large number of assurance statements will provide a comprehensive overview on the quality of
reports that could complement the current literature on this issue. Second, although the
recommendations of auditors are focused on specific reports, the analysis of a large array of
statements provides a more extensive view on the avenues for improvement of sustainability
reporting in general. These recommendations also indirectly reflect the main limitations of
sustainability reporting, and their analysis could contribute to the critical literature in this area.
Likewise, the critical content analysis of statements can raise ethical issues concerning the
managerial capture and lack of independence of the assurance process, which have been debated
in the literature (Adams and Evans, 2004; Hummel et al., 2017; Michelon et al., 2015). Finally,
by investigating the outcomes of assurance statements through the lens of the GRI principles for
the content and quality of reports, it is possible to shed further light on reporting organizations’
compliance with these principles and the extent to which they are seriously taken into account by
assurance providers themselves. How the GRI principles for the content and quality of report are

!
3!
integrated by assurance providers can be indicative of the quality of the verification process,
which is assumed to be based on relevant criteria and standards (AccountAbility, 2008; GRI,
2013a).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, the literature on the assurance of
sustainability reports and its contribution to the reliability of reporting practices is described.
Second, the method for the qualitative content analysis of assurance statements is explained.
Third, the main findings of the study are detailed in terms of outcomes of the assurance process,
statements on the content and quality of information, report limitations and suggestions for
improvement. Finally, the main contributions of the paper, its practical implications and avenues
for future research are examined.
The assurance of sustainability reports
Instilling confidence in sustainability reporting
Sustainability reporting has been defined as “the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being
accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance towards the goal
of sustainable development” (GRI, 2006, p.3). Nevertheless, to be credible and useful for
stakeholders, the information disclosed must be reliable, appropriately presented and clearly
follow defined rules (Adams and Evans, 2004; Boiral, 2013; Fonseca, 2010; Manetti and Becatti,
2009). To achieve this goal, the GRI proposes to follow two sets of principles: one set defining
the content of reports and the other related to their quality (GRI, 2006). The principles for report
content focus on the consistency between the information disclosed and the organizational
context, particularly in terms of the organization’s activity and its stakeholders’ expectations.
They include stakeholder inclusiveness (identification of stakeholders and response to their
expectations), the sustainability context (presentation of information in the broader context of
sustainability), materiality (relevance of topics covered by the report with regard to the
organization’s impacts and stakeholders decisions) and completeness (reports should release
sufficient information to assess the organization’s performance). The principles for report quality
focus on the presentation and transparency of information: balance (information should not be
focused on positive aspects only), comparability (information should be comparable over time
and between organizations), accuracy (information should be sufficiently detailed and valid to
assess performance), timeliness (regularity and recentness of information), clarity (readability
and understandability of reports) and reliability (information can be depended on).
Although the development of the GRI framework in sustainability reporting is generally
considered to have improved the quality of information (Deegan, 2002; Gilbert and Rasche,
2008; King and Bartels, 2015), the lack of reliability and transparency of sustainability reports
have been increasingly criticized in the literature (e.g. Cho et al., 2015; Milne et al., 2006;
Unerman et al., 2007). Some studies have highlighted the managerial capture of information and
the lack of involvement of stakeholders in the reporting process (Ball et al., 2000; Owen et al.,
2000; Smith et al., 2011). The successful and insubstantial rhetoric of many reports has also been
criticized (Cho et al., 2015; Fonseca, 2010; Livesey and Kearins, 2002). From this perspective,
sustainability reports appear to be marketing tool intended to positively influence the perceptions
of stakeholders rather than be reliable source of information (Cho et al., 2012; Talbot and Boiral,

!
4!
2015). The critical literature in this area has also shown the disconnection between the
information disclosed and the significant sustainability challenges faced by companies (Boiral,
2013; Moneva et al., 2006). Moreover, the information disclosed in GRI reports rarely seems to
comply fully with the requirements and technical protocols of this reporting framework (Boiral
and Henri, 2015; Talbot and Boiral, 2015).
These criticisms tend to undermine the credibility of sustainability reports and their usefulness
for stakeholders. A third party assurance process is generally considered to be the main response
to restore or enhance public confidence in these reports (De Beelde and Tuybens, 2015; Iansen-
Rogers and Oelschlaegel, 2005; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Manetti and Becatti, 2009; Park and
Brorson, 2005). Engagement with assurance can be defined as “an engagement in which an
assurance provider evaluates and expresses a conclusion on an organisation's public disclosure
about its performance as well as underlying systems, data and processes against suitable criteria
and standards in order to increase the credibility of the information for the intended audience”
(AccountAbility, 2008, p.23). The rapid expansion of the assurance process reflects the need to
increase the credibility of the disclosed information in the eyes of stakeholders. In 2015, nearly
two-thirds of the reports from the 250 largest companies worldwide were verified by external
auditors as compared to 30% in 2005 (King and Bartels, 2015). This expansion reflects the
development of an “audit society” (Power, 1997a, 1997b, 2003) in which the auditing and
verification practices prevalent in the field of accounting have gradually permeated other areas,
including sustainability reporting. The predominance of accountancy organizations, which
represent nearly two-thirds of sustainability report assurance providers (De Beelde and Tuybens,
2015; King and Bartels, 2015; Moroney et al., 2012), also reflects the development of this “audit
society” in that it is dominated by the practices and institutional arrangements that were first
established and are now widespread in the financial area (Boiral and Gendron, 2011; O’Dwyer et
al., 2011; Wong and Millington, 2014). Although the assurance of sustainability reports is based
on specific standards in particular AA1000 and ISAE 3000 these standards are themselves
based, to a large extent, on general auditing principles (i.e. independence and impartiality of
auditors, definition of the scope and different levels of assurance engagement and the
organization of assurance statements). While these principles are applied to various areas, they
predominate in accounting and financial auditing.
Overall, the application of these auditing principles is assumed to instill confidence in
sustainability reports and to improve their reliability (Dando and Swift, 2003; Gürtürk and Hahn,
2015; Hodge et al., 2009; Kolk and Perego, 2010; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005; Perego and Kolk,
2012). Nevertheless, this optimistic perspective is debated in the literature.
The benefits and controversies of the assurance process
Although the benefits and implications of third party assurance remain controversial, most
studies agree that the verification of sustainability reports by independent external auditors is
desirable or even necessary (Dando and Swift, 2003; Manetti and Becatti, 2009; Moroney et al.,
2012; Park and Brorson, 2005). First, by providing an assessment of corporate disclosure on
complex issues where reliable information is difficult to obtain, the assurance process is assumed
to reduce uncertainty and information asymmetry between managers and stakeholders (Gürtürk
and Hahn, 2015; Moroney et al., 2012; O’Dwyer et al., 2011). Second, the audit process can have
a disciplinary effect and encourage companies to improve their sustainability practices, including

!
5!
information disclosure (GRI, 2013b; Park and Brorson, 2005). From this perspective, it can be
assumed that third-party verification fosters the integration of the GRI principles defining report
content and quality. This integration can explain the positive effect of assurance on the quality of
reports and the promotion of a self-regulatory approach, particularly in geographic regions
characterized by weak institutional pressures (Kolk and Perego, 2010; Perego, 2009). Third, the
assurance process has been found to indirectly enhance stakeholder consultation (Manetti and
Toccafondi, 2012; Perego and Kolk, 2012). Audits may entail interviews with concerned parties,
in particular employees and, to a lesser extent, external stakeholders. Moreover, the
internalization of GRI reporting principles should encourage stakeholder responsiveness. As a
result, external assurance can contribute to stakeholder accountability. Although the beneficial
impact of this process on internal practices remains under-studied, most studies agree that the
assurance process tends to improve confidence in sustainability reports and, more generally,
increase an organization’s social legitimacy (Hodge et al., 2009; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012;
Moroney et al., 2012; Simnett et al., 2009).
Nevertheless, according to the critical literature on sustainability reporting assurance, such
confidence is questionable. First, the independence of assurance providers is debatable given the
underlying commercial relationships between auditors and companies (Ball et al., 2000; Owen et
al., 2000; Perego and Kolk, 2012). These commercial relationships tend to encourage auditors to
be rather uncritical and to not seriously question the reliability of information released by
companies. Overall, a commercial relationship can compromise the professional skepticism and
impartiality that should characterize third-party assurance (Boiral and Gendron, 2011). Second,
the managerial capture of information and the lack of involvement of stakeholders in the
assurance process have been criticized (Adams and Evans, 2004; Ball et al., 2000; Hummel et al.,
2017; Michelon et al., 2015; Owen et al., 2000). This managerial capture is related to the control
of managers over the information disclosed in reports and the dependence of auditors on the
information released by companies. Third, the professionalization of assurance providers and
rigor of practices in this area seem questionable. Unlike financial auditing, the assurance of
sustainability reports is not necessarily based on well-recognized standards and well-established
professional bodies with clear requirements in terms of training and experience. Some audits may
be conducted quite superficially with the intention of providing a kind of commercial certificate
mostly intended to increase the social legitimacy of reporting companies (Ball et al., 2000; Park
and Brorson, 2005; Smith et al., 2011). Such behavior is in line with the legitimacy theory, which
claims that many companies subjected to strong institutional pressures tend to superficially adopt
new practices in order to improve their social legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Michelon et
al., 2015; Smith et al., 2011). By adopting similar assurance processes based on recognized
institutional arrangements arising from the area of accounting and reflecting the “audit society”
(Power, 1997a, 1997b, 2003), reporting organizations tend to become isomorphic and better able
to respond to social expectations for more accountability in sustainability reporting (Boiral and
Gendron, 2011; Gürtürk and Hahn, 2015; Perego and Kolk, 2012).
Despite controversies over the assurance process, most critical studies do not directly question
the importance and legitimacy of third-party verification of sustainability reports. Some of these
critical studies are even optimistic about the trend toward more robust verification practices,
increased dialogue with stakeholders and improvements in the quality of reports arising from
more rigorous assurance processes (Ball et al., 2000; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012; O’Dwyer et

Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the European Union Directive 2014/95 on non-financial and diversity information is discussed and a research agenda is developed to conduct pragmatic, theory-oriented research into the Directive and corporate sustainability reporting.
Abstract: Motivated by the new European Union Directive 2014/95 on non-financial and diversity information, this paper aims to develop a future research agenda to conduct pragmatic, theory-oriented research into the Directive and corporate sustainability reporting.,Drawing upon the relational dynamics between states, firms and society in regulating non-financial reporting (NFR), this essay frames and analyses the Directive and its grand theories, as unproven theories, by discussing its practical concerns and reviewing the academic literature.,The Directive is an act of policy to legitimise NFR that encompasses two grand theories: improve the comparability of information and enhance corporate accountability. From a pluralist perspective, companies can rest assure that their compliance with the Directive will be perceived as socially desirable, proper and appropriate. However, some of the forces involved in translating the Directive into actionable policies operate contra to the Directive’s goals and, instead, act as barriers to its grand theories. In addressing these barriers, a research agenda is proposed that both traces backward to re-examine the foundational theories of the past and looks forward to explore alternative possibilities for achieving these goals.,This paper provides researchers with a practical-driven and theory-oriented agenda for future research in light of the rising academic interest in the Directive.,The barriers to the Directive’s grand theories help policymakers and practitioners to understand the practical concerns about the implementation of the Directive and other mandatory NFR policies.,This paper enriches the emerging debate on the Directive and highlights future possibilities for fruitful empirical research by developing a research agenda.

168 citations


Cites background from "Assessing and Improving the Quality..."

  • ...Assurance by independent third parties can have a “disciplinary effect” (Boiral et al., 2017, p. 3) because it encourages companies to improve their sustainability practices and performance, their internal controls and the accuracy and reliability of the information disclosed....

    [...]

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the quality of, as well as the similarities and differences between, assurance statements in sustainability reports and suggest that current practices may diminish the credibility, transparency, and internal benefits for management which could be otherwise derived from assurance statements.
Abstract: In recent years, the number of companies using external third parties to assure their sustainability reports has increased. Previous studies have underlined the heterogeneous content of voluntary assurance statements and have attributed this to the fact that standards are vague and regulations are non-existent. Against this background, this study seeks to examine the quality of, as well as the similarities and differences between, assurance statements in sustainability reports. The paper specifically analyses content, applied standards, assurance engagements, and providers by applying content analysis to the assurance statements in non-financial reports. The results indicate differences in the content, executed processes, and concrete implementation of the standards. Non-accountants apply a wider diversity of methods, while assurance processes by accountants seem to be prone to isomorphism due to professionalisation, network effects, and uncertainty. The results are discussed in the context of isomorphism by templates and deinstitutionalisation and suggest that current practices may diminish the credibility, transparency, and internal benefits for management which could be otherwise derived from assurance statements.

96 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors measure reputation and legitimacy by surveying 509 professors from 47 different Spanish universities, considering pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy types and analyze reputation in terms of performance, innovation, citizenship, services, governance, and workplace climate.

88 citations

References
More filters
Book
12 Jan 1994
TL;DR: This book presents a step-by-step guide to making the research results presented in reports, slideshows, posters, and data visualizations more interesting, and describes how coding initiates qualitative data analysis.
Abstract: Matthew B. Miles, Qualitative Data Analysis A Methods Sourcebook, Third Edition. The Third Edition of Miles & Huberman's classic research methods text is updated and streamlined by Johnny Saldana, author of The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Several of the data display strategies from previous editions are now presented in re-envisioned and reorganized formats to enhance reader accessibility and comprehension. The Third Edition's presentation of the fundamentals of research design and data management is followed by five distinct methods of analysis: exploring, describing, ordering, explaining, and predicting. Miles and Huberman's original research studies are profiled and accompanied with new examples from Saldana's recent qualitative work. The book's most celebrated chapter, "Drawing and Verifying Conclusions," is retained and revised, and the chapter on report writing has been greatly expanded, and is now called "Writing About Qualitative Research." Comprehensive and authoritative, Qualitative Data Analysis has been elegantly revised for a new generation of qualitative researchers. Johnny Saldana, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Second Edition. The Second Edition of Johnny Saldana's international bestseller provides an in-depth guide to the multiple approaches available for coding qualitative data. Fully up-to-date, it includes new chapters, more coding techniques and an additional glossary. Clear, practical and authoritative, the book: describes how coding initiates qualitative data analysis; demonstrates the writing of analytic memos; discusses available analytic software; suggests how best to use the book for particular studies. In total, 32 coding methods are profiled that can be applied to a range of research genres from grounded theory to phenomenology to narrative inquiry. For each approach, Saldana discusses the method's origins, a description of the method, practical applications, and a clearly illustrated example with analytic follow-up. A unique and invaluable reference for students, teachers, and practitioners of qualitative inquiry, this book is essential reading across the social sciences. Stephanie D. H. Evergreen, Presenting Data Effectively Communicating Your Findings for Maximum Impact. This is a step-by-step guide to making the research results presented in reports, slideshows, posters, and data visualizations more interesting. Written in an easy, accessible manner, Presenting Data Effectively provides guiding principles for designing data presentations so that they are more likely to be heard, remembered, and used. The guidance in the book stems from the author's extensive study of research reporting, a solid review of the literature in graphic design and related fields, and the input of a panel of graphic design experts. Those concepts are then translated into language relevant to students, researchers, evaluators, and non-profit workers - anyone in a position to have to report on data to an outside audience. The book guides the reader through design choices related to four primary areas: graphics, type, color, and arrangement. As a result, readers can present data more effectively, with the clarity and professionalism that best represents their work.

41,986 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

32,981 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
Abstract: Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.

31,398 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Many formal organizational structures arise as reflections of rationalized institutional rules as discussed by the authors, and the elaboration of such rules in modern states and societies accounts in part for the expansion and i...
Abstract: Many formal organizational structures arise as reflections of rationalized institutional rules. The elaboration of such rules in modern states and societies accounts in part for the expansion and i...

23,073 citations

Frequently Asked Questions (10)
Q1. What are the contributions in "Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditor's perspective" ?

This article presents an analysis of the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality and the limitations of sustainability reports and their recommendations to improve them using the Global Reporting Initiative ( GRI ) as a framework. The qualitative content analysis of 301 assurance statements for sustainability reports from mining and energy companies provides a comprehensive view of the main outcomes of the assurance process, including its limitations, the application of the GRI principles and suggestions for improving sustainability reports. In taking into account the perceptions of practitioners a priori well informed on the quality of sustainability reports – namely assurance providers – this paper complements the current literature on sustainability reporting and its assurance, including critical approaches that question the reliability of sustainability reports, stakeholder engagement and the accountability of reporting practices. This study contributes to the debates surrounding the quality of sustainability reports, the added value of assurance statements and the ethical issues underlying the assurance process. 

Limitations and avenues for future research The limitations of this paper and its empirical findings suggest various avenues for future research. Future studies could interview assurance providers and managers to investigate the gap between the information disclosed in assurance statements and their actual opinions on the quality of sustainability reports. Future studies could investigate the extent to which the outcomes of the verification process are seriously taken into consideration by managers and how they may influence organizational reporting practices. 

The lack of explicit references to the limitations of reports is partly compensated for by frequent suggestions for improvement, which are proposed in half of all statements. 

Although the language used by assurance providers is optimistic and rarely critical, 23% of statements from the mining sector and 20% from the energy sector explicitly mention some limitations and deficiencies related to the reporting process or auditability of information. 

2009, p.85)Sixthly, 11% of statements suggest that the reporting companies clarify their sustainability objectives and action plans for the future. 

In line with the legitimacy theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983), the isomorphism of assurance statements is shaped by the search for legitimacy of organizations. 

(Korea Midland Power, 2011, p.73)Secondly, 21% of statements suggest improvements in the control and internal verification process of reporting companies. 

As highlighted by Hummel et al. (2017), such capture of assurance statements raises important ethical questions in terms of independence, professionalism and objectivity of assurance providers. 

Generally speaking, the compatibility between reporting and verification standards should be improved to encourage more substantial verification, particularly on issues that tend to be overlooked by assurance providers, such as the sustainability context, the balance of reports and the comparability of information. 

Such camouflage has ethical implications because it conveys a misleading picture of confidence and rationality to stakeholders, including the socially responsible analysts and investors who use sustainability reporting to assess the corporate performance in this area.