REVIEW ARTICLE
Evidence for the prevalence of the sustainability concept
in European corporate responsibility reporting
Lucia Gatti
•
Peter Seele
Received: 8 May 2013 / Accepted: 6 October 2013 / Published online: 20 October 2013
Ó Springer Japan 2013
Abstract This paper empirically examines the terminol-
ogy used in the titles of corporate social responsibility
(CSR)/sustainability reports in Europe. Our data supports
the claim of the rise of the sustainability concept in cor-
porate communication in comparison to other concepts. In
detail this research analysed CSR/sustainability reports to
support Matten and Moon’s [Acad Manage Rev
33(2):404–424, 2008] hypothesis regarding a recent Euro-
pean trend towards a more voluntary and explicit CSR
practice. The second and main objective of the research
was to describe statistically significant trends in the use of
terms and concepts in CSR/sustainability reporting to bet-
ter understand how European companies interpret CSR and
sustainability and how they communicate it to their
stakeholders. To this end, a content analysis was conducted
on 329 CSR/sustainability reports from 50 leading Euro-
pean companies from Euro Stoxx 50 that were published
between the beginning of online CSR/sustainability
reporting in 1998 and 2010. Our data analysis clearly
indicates that the use of social and environment-related
terms occurred more frequently in the past and demon-
strates the establishment of sustainability in corporate non-
financial reporting. Based on the results of our empirical
research, the final discussion explores the development and
diffusion of the sustainability concept in both the academic
and business fields and examines economic, environmental,
and social implications. Different propositions are pre-
sented to explain the recent rise of the sustainability con-
cept in European CSR/sustainability reporting, adding to
the formation of sustainability as a concept and as a
science.
Keywords Sustainability Corporate
communication Corporate reporting Corporate
social responsibility CSR terminology Europe
Introduction
The first communications medium to indicate the corporate
responsibility profile, strategy, and actions concerning the
social and environmental commitment of a company is its
corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability report.
In fact, according to Idowu and Towler (2004, p. 420),
CSR/sustainability reports are vehicles used to demonstrate
how caring a company has been with regards to social and
environmental issues over the financial period that has just
ended as well as how it intends to continue to act in future
periods.
In the last 10 years, CSR/sustainability reporting has
achieved growing relevance not only as a field of research
for academia, government and the public, but also as a
topic of interest for business companies (Kolk 2004),
capital markets (Flatz 2003) and investors (Australian
Government 2003; Isenmann et al. 2007). CSR/sustain-
ability reporting is becoming part of companies’ regular
affairs. Growing numbers of business companies have even
incorporated CSR/sustainability reporting into their busi-
ness mainstream (Isenmann et al. 2007). The establishment
of CSR reporting and communication can be considered a
Handled by Joanne Kauffman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) (Retired), France.
L. Gatti P. Seele (&)
University of Lugano, Via Giuseppe Buffi 13, 6904 Lugano,
Switzerland
e-mail: peter.seele@usi.ch
L. Gatti
e-mail: lucia.gatti@usi.ch
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:89–102
DOI 10.1007/s11625-013-0233-5
signal of an explicit approach to CSR (Maignan and Ral-
ston 2002; Matten and Moon 2008), characterised by cor-
porate voluntary and free engagement in CSR activities and
programmes. Therefore, our study takes into account
European publication of CSR reports to verify the theo-
retical argument supporting the diffusion of an explicit
CSR in Europe (Matten and Moon 2008).
Moreover, our research addresses the CSR terminology
that companies have adopted in their CSR communication.
Confusion exists about which concepts better indicate a
more ethical way of doing business incorporating social
and environmental responsibilities. Scholars and practitio-
ners have developed several concepts and terms, including
‘‘corporate social responsibility’’, ‘‘corporate citizenship’’,
‘‘triple bottom line’’, and ‘‘sustainable development’’
(Marrewijk 2003; Panwar 2006). Among them, for years
the most frequently used in corporate communication has
been corporate social responsibility, often abbreviated
CSR. However, recently, different companies have started
to use the term sustainability in their reports. In 2008,
Karen (2008, p. 72) claimed that the ‘‘concept of sustain-
ability is just beginning to have an impact on corporate
disclosure. The term sustainability may become an inte-
grating concept linking financial and social performance
and joining together corporate social responsibility and risk
management’’.
Our study aims to determine which concepts companies
most commonly use to indicate their corporate commit-
ment to CSR/sustainability and their ethical approach to
business. It aims to be the first step towards a better
understanding of corporate implementation of CSR/sus-
tainability concepts and terms. By addressing the European
diffusion of the explicit approach to CSR and corporate
implementation of CSR terminology, this study provides
insights on where European CSR/sustainability reporting is
going and which academic contributions are needed and
can be appreciated by practitioners and the public. More-
over, based on an analysis of corporate preferences and
trends related to the use of CSR/sustainability terminology,
our study discusses possible explanations of the findings
regarding concept preferences and longitudinal trends in
CSR reporting.
Theoretical background
European CSR: towards an explicit model
of communication
Idowu and Towler (2004) placed the birth of social and
environmental reporting in the 1970s. At that time, the
main focus of CSR/sustainability reporting—in both the
US and Europe—was the identification and measurement
of ‘‘social and economic effects of an institution on soci-
ety’’ (Kolk 2006, pp 42–43) while the debate centred on
duties and responsibilities of business actors. However,
European reports, in contrast to American reports, focussed
more on employee issues and less on environmental and
local community matters (Kolk 2006, pp 42–43). For
example, in the UK in the late 1970s, annual employee
reports became increasingly common. These reports, like
their successors (i.e. the CSR/sustainability report), were
voluntary reports with no specified format or standard
rules. The diffusion of employee reports was probably
influenced by the UK government; in fact, during the
1970s, Parliament passed several acts, including the Equal
Pay Act 1970 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974,
intended to highlight responsibilities of business entities
towards their employees (Idowu and Towler 2004).
In the late 1980s, a change in public expectations and
pressure from environmental activists and non-govern-
mental organisations forced business companies to treat the
environment in a more responsible manner and to show
their commitment through corporate reports (Idowu 1989).
Environmental reporting also increased as a result of the
development of environmental management standards such
as the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme—a
corporate management tool to evaluate and report organi-
sational environmental performance—and due to govern-
ment pressure regarding environmental issues and pollution
(KPMG and UNEP 2006). Therefore, until the 1990s, CSR/
sustainability reporting was focussed primarily on envi-
ronmental issues. At the beginning of the new millennium,
research on corporate reports revealed that the percentage
of reports focussed exclusively on environmental issues
declined to 13 % in 2005; in the same year, an increased
number of companies (54 %) decided to publish corporate
reports related to health and safety, employee relationships
and philanthropy and charitable contributions (Palenberg
et al. 2006).
The history of European CSR reporting reveals that the
main drivers of CSR communication have been associated
historically with external institutional pressure to conform
to legal requirements or social norms. In this regard,
Matten and Moon (
2008) argued that ‘‘European CSR has
been implied in systems of wider organizational responsi-
bility that have yielded narrow incentives and opportunities
for corporations to take explicit responsibility’’ (p 409).
While ‘‘implicit CSR’’ consists of respecting social values,
norms and rules required by the institutional systems when
the firm operates, ‘‘explicit CSR’’ refers to voluntary pro-
grammes and strategies designed by corporations to com-
bine social and business concerns. Historically, the US
system has favoured the diffusion of explicit CSR, while
European companies have adopted a more implicit com-
mitment. However, Arvidsson (2010) claimed that the
90 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:89–102
123
approach to CSR communication is moving from a reactive
approach focussed on responses to corporate scandals and
external pressure to a more proactive approach. In partic-
ular, according to Matten and Moon (2008) and Hiss
(2009), European companies are moving towards a more
explicit CSR based on voluntary and deliberate corporate
decisions. The authors hypothesize that recent changes in
the European institutional framework have led European
corporations towards a more explicit CSR. They concep-
tualise the rise of European explicit CSR as a response to
changing conditions of four major institutional systems:
political, financial, educational and labour and cultural.
Their argument is addressed by our study, which aims to
find empirical support for the European explicit CSR claim
by measuring the frequency of CSR report publications.
CSR/sustainability terminology: an evolution of terms
The second aspect addressed by our study is related to the
terminology adopted by corporations in communicating
CSR. As previously mentioned, different terms and con-
cepts have been developed by academics, consultants and
corporate executives to indicate a more ethical way of
doing business (Panwar 2006). In his paper Concepts and
Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between
Agency and Communion, van Marrewijk (2003) provided
an overview of the debate on definitions and concepts
related to CSR. According to van Marrewijk (2003,
pp 95–96), academics and practitioners ‘‘have created,
supported or criticised related concepts such as ‘sustainable
development’, ‘corporate citizenship’, ‘sustainable entre-
preneurship’, ‘Triple Bottom Line’, ‘business ethics’, and
‘corporate social responsibility’.’’ Among these terms, the
most frequently used is corporate social responsibility,
often abbreviated to CSR. However, despite the growing
body of literature on CSR, defining CSR is not easy. In
both the literature and in business practice, CSR varies in
terms of its underlying meaning and the issues addressed
(Matten and Moon 2008). Despite the European Union
(EU) commission (2002) offering a definition of CSR in
2002, no unique definition has emerged in last decade
(Rahman 2011). According to Rahman (2011), the various
definitions of CSR presented in the literature cover various
dimensions, ‘‘including economic development, ethical
practices, environmental protection, stakeholders’
involvement, transparency, accountability, responsible
behaviour, moral obligation, corporate responsiveness’’
(Rahman 2011, p 166). Moreover, in addition to CSR,
various companies have now started to use the term sus-
tainability in their reports (Karen 2008). In literature,
sustainability has been represented by a set of triangular
concepts as the triple bottom line (people, planet, profit) or
the 3P model (people, prosperity, planet) (Kajikawa 2008).
These approaches to sustainability contribute to make
explicit the three principles underlying sustainability:
environmental integrity, social equity and economic pros-
perity (Scherer et al. 2013). Another contribution to the
definition of sustainability is the introduction of a temporal
and spatial perspective (Kajikawa 2008). Indeed, following
Kajikawa (2008), sustainability implies an intergenera-
tional phenomenon and a trade-off between short-term
gains and long-term concerns. The spatial dimension of
sustainability is linked to the concept of intragenerational
equity, which addresses the economic and resources dis-
parity among nations (Kajikawa 2008).
Despite the diffusion of sustainability related concepts
in corporate communication (Karen 2008), with regard to
CSR, the management literature does not offer a univer-
sally accepted definition of the terms sustainability and
sustainable development (Hartman et al. 2007), and the UN
definition has been criticised and subjected to different
interpretations (Gatto 1995). Even more difficult is the
attempt to distinguish between the concepts of CSR and
sustainability, particularly in relation to reporting practice.
In fact, as Montiel (2008) stated, in the management lit-
erature both terms are used to indicate social and envi-
ronmental management issues, without a clear distinction
of their meaning. Van Marrewijk (2003) suggests that
sustainability includes three dimensions (economic, envi-
ronmental, and social) while CSR translates these dimen-
sions into a concrete responsibility for business actors.
However, practitioners often use ‘‘sustainability’’ and
‘‘CSR’’ interchangeably to indicate a more responsible or
ethical way of doing business. According to Fassin et al.
(2011, p 426), ‘‘sustainability and CSR seem to have
converged in recent years such that they are now very
similar concepts’’.
The lack of clear and accepted definitions, the continu-
ous introduction and change of CSR-related concepts and
the overlap in terminology and definitions have created
confusion in the academic debate (van Marrewijk 2003).
This confusion in CSR/sustainability terminology has been
underscored by Nielsen and Thomsen (2007), who
addressed the difficulties of developing consistent strate-
gies for reporting on CSR/sustainability given the lack of a
common understanding.
Research focus: exploring the link between CSR
and sustainability concepts and terminology
The first objective of our study is to address the claim
regarding the increasing prevalence of an explicit CSR in
Europe. As previously discussed, historically, the European
legal and cultural systems have yielded narrow incentives
for companies to engage in voluntary CSR programmes.
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:89–102 91
123
Matten and Moon (2008) and Hiss (2009) suggest that the
recent European institutional reorganisation has encour-
aged the increasing prevalence of an explicit kind of CSR
that is typical of American organisations. As the publica-
tion of CSR/sustainability reports is currently a voluntary
and deliberate corporate practice, it can be considered a
signal of explicit CSR. Indeed, one characteristic of
explicit CSR is linked to the wording that corporations use
in addressing their relationship with society (Maignan and
Ralston 2002; Matten and Moon 2008). Companies prac-
ticing explicit CSR also tend to communicate their
engagement in a more explicit way by publishing CSR
reports and by describing their involvement in their cor-
porate communication (Maignan and Ralston 2002).
Therefore, the analysis of CSR report publications can be
used as a measure of explicit CSR.
By analysing the frequency of corporate publications of
CSR/sustainability reports, our research aims to support the
theoretical statement formulated by Matten and Moon
(2008). Therefore:
H1: Because European CSR is moving towards an
explicit model, and CSR reports are signs of explicit
CSR, we expect European companies to regularly
publish CSR reports.
The second point addressed by our research deals with
CSR terminology. The unsolved debate around the defini-
tion of CSR/sustainability-related concepts and the lack of
common interpretations in the academic debate, as previ-
ously described (Fassin et al. 2011; Hartman et al. 2007;
Matten and Moon 2008; Montiel 2008; Nielsen and
Thomsen 2007; Rahman 2011; van Marrewijk 2003), have
led to confusion in the corporate implementation of CSR/
sustainability terminology. Given the problems with cur-
rent terminology, each company has the opportunity—or
the burden—to choose which concepts best match its own
idea of CSR in accordance with company strategy and
intentions (van Marrewijk 2003). Our study attempts to
identify which concepts companies consider to be the most
appropriate in describing their CSR commitment.
Moreover, our research aims to identify differences in
terminology between the present and the past and to dis-
cover trends in the use of CSR-related terms. Isomorphism,
implied in neoinstitutionalism, assumes that externally
codified rules and norms assign legitimacy to management
practices and trends, regardless of their actual usefulness
(Othman et al. 2011). These rules and norms are not only
derived from laws, but they can also be established by self-
regulatory and voluntary initiatives. In the case of CSR in
Europe, both governmental initiatives (such as the Equal
Pay Act 1970 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
that in the 1970s established new rules for employee
treatment) and voluntary initiatives are seen as
isomorphisms (Eberhard-Harribey 2006; Matten and Moon
2008). In particular, in relation to CSR reporting, prior
research suggests that new accounting and reporting prac-
tices are influenced by the institutional environment.
According to Othman et al. (2011), new trends in CSR
reporting are established through coercive isomorphism,
normative isomorphism, and mimetic isomorphism. Coer-
cive isomorphism derives from external pressure exerted
on organizations by other organizations upon which they
depend, such as the national government, or by the cultural
expectations of the society. Normative isomorphism
reflects the normative intention of the corporation to be
accountable and transparent towards stakeholders. Finally,
following mimetic isomorphism, trends in CSR reporting
can be driven by the desire to imitate other companies.
Our study assumes that, because there is a tendency
towards uniformity in CSR report terminology, there
should be recognisable trends in the use of terms over time.
Therefore:
H2: Because of isomorphism in CSR reporting, we
expect to find statistically significant trends in the use
of CSR-related terms with regards to different time
periods.
Research methodology
To capture corporate preferences in terms of CSR concepts,
we took into account the denomination applied in CSR/
sustainability report titles. The challenge here is dealing
with the lack of agreement among academics and practi-
tioners regarding how to label corporate CSR/sustainability
reports. Comparable reports in terms of topic and functions
have been titled in different ways by different companies or
even by the same company at different times. We assume
that companies choose the most appropriate concepts to
indicate and communicate to the public their social and
environmental commitment. Therefore, the question is: if
managers have to choose words to indicate corporate
commitment to CSR/sustainability, which concepts do they
prefer? Usually, when analysing a text, one part reveals the
author’s preferred concepts to indicate the topic of the
report: the title. The title of a report can summarise the
main topics addressed as well as indicate the nature of the
report itself. The underlying assumption here is that the
title of a CSR/sustainability report works as a condensed
version—or visiting card, so to speak—communicating the
corporation’s responsibilities, including social and envi-
ronmental responsibilities. The terminology used in CSR/
sustainability report titles reveals concepts that the corpo-
ration considers appropriate in describing and communi-
cating its specific CSR approach. Therefore, by analysing
92 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:89–102
123
the terminology used, we may gain insights into how
companies interpret the CSR concept and their approach to
it. In comparing the use of terms over time, we might also
identify changes and trends in both the topics addressed
and the terminology used.
Among the different methodologies adopted in the
analysis of corporate websites, scholars have used content
analysis (Krippendorf 1980) frequently to study corporate
information published online (Robbins and Stylianou
2002). In our study, we used conceptual analysis (Palm-
quist et al. 1997), a basic method of content analysis, and
applied coding categories (Carley 1993) to prove the
existence and measure the frequency of certain key terms
in CSR/sustainability report titles.
Sampling design
The data selected for the study consist of 329 titles of online
CSR/sustainability reports belonging to the 50 European
companies listed in the Euro Stoxx 50, a stock index of
corporations in the Eurozone designed by Stoxx Ltd., cov-
ering 50 stocks from 12 Eurozone countries: Austria, Bel-
gium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
According to the Stoxx web page, this index ‘‘provides a
Blue-chip representation of supersector leaders in the Eu-
rozone’’ (Stoxx 2011). Therefore, our sample included
report titles from leading European companies. Although
the 50 companies identified by the Euro Stoxx 50 do not
represent European companies in general, leading compa-
nies establish practices and norms that other companies
might be likely to follow (Karen 2008). Table 1 reports the
names of the 50 companies and the year of publication of
the corresponding CSR reports analysed in this study.
The CSR report titles selected for the study refer to the
time period from 1998, when the first CSR report from one
of the 50 companies from the Euro Stoxx 50 appeared on
the company website, to 2010. The sample includes the
titles of all the different CSR/sustainability reports pub-
lished on the websites of the 50 companies between 1998
and 2010.
Process of coding and categorisation
To answer our research questions, we focussed on specific
keywords and tested whether or not they were used consis-
tently over time. Key terms and concepts were selected and
coded in different categories based on the existing literature
on CSR and CSR/sustainability reporting (Karen 2008;
Panwar 2006; van Marrewijk 2003). These categories are:
– Responsibility (Responsibility/Corporate Responsibility/
Corporate Social Responsibility/Social Responsibility).
– Sustainability (Sustainability/Sustainable Develop-
ment/Sustainable Business).
– Environment (Environment/Environmental).
– Social (Social/Corporate Social Responsibility/Social
Responsibility/Society).
– Ethics (Business Ethics/Ethics/Ethical).
– Citizenship (Citizenship/Citizen).
Following Fassin et al. (2011), other CSR-related con-
cepts, such as corporate governance, accountability, com-
pliance, and code of characters, have emerged recently in
the management literature and corporate communication.
However, because none of these concepts was found in the
titles analysed, we decided to rely on the categorisation
proposed by Karen (2008).
One characteristic of coding categories presented by
Carley (1993) relates to the level of generalisation in the
coding process. The generalisation of coding corresponds
to the level of implication one is going to tolerate. The
level of implication accepted in a study allows researchers
to code in the same category not only a specific term, but
also those sets of terms that imply the concept expressed in
the specific category of terms. For example, in the current
study, all the sets of words that include the term respon-
sibility have been coded in the ‘‘Responsibility’’ category.
Generalisation makes it possible to consider different
aspects and concepts expressed in the same sets of words
simultaneously.
To address our second hypothesis, six assumptions were
formulated and tested statistically to understand whether
the same terms/categories, as described previously, were
used consistently or not between 1998 and 2010 in CSR/
sustainability report titles from the companies listed in
Euro Stoxx 50:
Assumption 1 (A1): The ‘‘Responsibility’’ category is
not used consistently over time in CSR report titles.
Assumption 2 (A2): The ‘‘Sustainability’’ category is not
used consistently over time in CSR report titles.
Assumption 3 (A3): The ‘‘Environment’’ category is not
used consistently over time in CSR report titles.
Assumption 4 (A4): The ‘‘Social’’ category is not used
consistently over time in CSR report titles.
Assumption 5 (A5): The ‘‘Business Ethics’’ category is
not used consistently over time in CSR report titles.
Assumption 6 (A6): The ‘‘Citizenship’’ category is not
used consistently over time in CSR report titles.
For each category, we measured the frequency of use in
CSR/sustainability report titles during different time peri-
ods. We then compared the number of times a category
appears in different time periods to identify changes in the
use of CSR/sustainability-related concepts. To compare the
frequency of use in different time periods, the 13 years
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:89–102 93
123
