Advertisement

Mandatory CSR reporting—literature review and future developments in Germany

  • Maryna GulenkoEmail author
Originalbeitrag / Original article
  • 207 Downloads

Abstract

The last years have seen an upsurge in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting regulation around the world. Based on a summary of the literature, this paper provides an overview over possible consequences of CSR reporting regulation and derives potential future developments brought by the introduction of the European CSR Directive in Germany. The results suggest that mandatory CSR reporting leads to a shift in companies’ reporting behaviour. In particular, more companies report on CSR issues and overall quantity of reporting is increased. However, this does not go along with an increase in reporting quality. Moreover, results indicate that consequences of companies’ changed reporting behaviour (i. e., second-order consequences) are under-researched. Lastly, this paper suggests that German companies will, subsequent to the CSR Directive, increase the number of topics covered in their CSR reports, possibly at the expense of overall reporting quality. It remains an interesting question for future researchers to examine the extent to which mandatory CSR reporting may bring about other consequences, on a company-, investor- or society-level.

Nichtfinanzielle Berichterstattungspflicht – Literaturzusammenfassung und Mögliche Entwicklungen in Deutschland

Zusammenfassung

Basierend auf einer Literaturzusammenfassung präsentiert dieser Artikel einen Überblick über mögliche Konsequenzen einer nichtfinanziellen Berichterstattungspflicht und leitet daraus mögliche zukünftige Entwicklungen in Deutschland nach Einführung des CSR-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetzes ab. Die Ergebnisse suggerieren, dass die nichtfinanzielle Berichterstattungspflicht zu einer Änderung der Berichterstattungspraxis von Unternehmen führt. Insbesondere berichten mehr Unternehmen über ihre nichtfinanzielle Performance und der Umfang der Berichterstattung steigt. Jedoch geht das nicht zwingenderweise mit einer Verbesserung der Berichterstattungsqualität einher. Der Literaturüberblick zeigt darüber hinaus, dass potenzielle Konsequenzen aus einer veränderten Berichterstattungspraxis noch zu wenig erforscht sind. Schließlich suggeriert dieser Artikel, dass nach Einführung des CSR-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetzes mehr deutsche Unternehmen nichtfinanzielle Informationen veröffentlichen werden, möglicherweise auf Kosten der Berichterstattungsqualität. Es können sich Konsequenzen aus der veränderten Berichterstattungspraxis ergeben, wie zum Beispiel ein Sinken der Unternehmensprofitabilität oder ein Rückgang der Luftverschmutzung. Zukünftige Forschung ist notwendig, um diese Konsequenzen zu identifizieren und daraus mögliche Handlungsempfehlungen für den Gesetzgeber abzuleiten.

Notes

Conflict of interest

M. Gulenko declares that she has no competing interests.

References

  1. Adams CA, Kuasirikun N (2000) A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Eur Account Rev 9:53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams CA, Hill W‑Y, Roberts CB (1998) Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? Br Account Rev 30:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amel-Zadeh A (2016) The materiality of nonfinancial information: a review of theory and empirical evidence on sustainability disclosures, corporate social responsibility and responsible investing. Working paper.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2664547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amel-Zadeh A, Serafeim G (2018) Why and how investors use ESG information: evidence from a global survey. Financ Anal J.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2925310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Athanasopoulou A, Selsky JW (2015) The social context of corporate social responsibility: enriching research with multiple perspectives and multiple levels. Bus Soc 54:322–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baboukardos D (2017) Market valuation of greenhouse gas emissions under a mandatory reporting regime: evidence from the UK. Account Forum 41:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baron DP (2008) Managerial contracting and corporate social responsibility. J Public Econ 92:268–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berle AA, Means GC (1932) The modern corporation and private property. Harcourt, Brace & World, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhatia A (2012) The corporate social responsibility report: the hybridization of a “confused” genre (2007–2011). IEEE Trans Prof Commun 55:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brüggemann U, Hitz J‑M, Sellhorn T (2013) Intended and unintended consequences of mandatory IFRS adoption: a review of extant evidence and suggestions for future research. Eur Account Rev 22:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bubna-Litic K (2008) Environmental reporting as a communications tool: a question of enforcement? J Environ Law 20:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrots and Sticks (2016) Global trends in sustainability reporting regulation and policy. https://www.carrotsandsticks.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Carrots-Sticks-2016.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  13. Chen S, Bouvain P (2009) Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J Bus Ethics 87:299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen Y‑C, Hung M, Wang Y (2018) The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: evidence from China. J Account Econ 65:169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cormier D, Lapointe-Antunes P, Magnan M (2015) Does corporate governance enhance the appreciation of mandatory environmental disclosure by financial markets? J Manag Gov 19:897–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Criado-Jiménez I, Fernández-Chulián M, Husillos-Carqués FJ, Larrinaga-González C (2008) Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in financial statements: the case of Spain (2001–2003). J Bus Ethics 79:245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Damak-Ayadi S (2010) Social and environmental reporting in the annual reports of large companies in France. Int J Account Manag Inf Sys 9:22–44Google Scholar
  18. Daske H, Hail L, Leuz C, Verdi R (2008) Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: early evidence on the economic consequences. J Account Res 46:1085–1142Google Scholar
  19. Deegan C (2002) Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—a theoretical foundation. Account Auditing Account J 15:282–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dienes D, Sassen R, Fischer J (2016) What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability 7:154–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Adv Strateg Manag 17:143–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dong S, Xu L (2016) The impact of explicit CSR regulation: evidence from China’s mining firms. J Appl Account Res 17:237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dumitru M, Dyduch J, Gușe R‑G, Krasodomska J (2017) Corporate reporting practices in Poland and Romania—An ex-ante study to the new non-financial reporting European Directive. Account Eur 14:279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM (2011) 681 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2014) Disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by large companies and groups—Frequently asked questions: MEMO/14/301. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-301_de.htm. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  26. Eurostat (2017) GDP and main components. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10_gdp&lang=en. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  27. EU—European Union (2014) Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2014. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  28. Fatima AH, Abdullah N, Sulaiman M (2015) Environmental disclosure quality: examining the impact of the stock exchange of Malaysia’s listing requirements. Soc Responsib J 11:904–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Federal Administrative Court (2018) Luftreinhaltepläne Düsseldorf und Stuttgart: Diesel-Verkehrsverbote ausnahmsweise möglich. http://www.bverwg.de/pm/2018/9. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  30. Ferguson J, Sales de Aguiar TR, Fearfull A (2016) Corporate response to climate change: language, power and symbolic construction. Account Auditing Account J 29:278–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fifka M (2012) The development and state of research on social and environmental reporting in global comparison. J Betriebswirtsch 62:45–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fifka M (2013) Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective—a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Bus Strategy Environ 22:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fink A (2014) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper, 4th edn. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  34. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman series in business and public policy. Pitman Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  35. Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Frost GR (2007) The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guidelines: Australian evidence. Abacus 43:190–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greiling D, Traxler AA, Stötzer S (2015) Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss public sector. Int J Public Sect Manag 28:404–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grewal J, Riedl EJ, Serafeim G (2018) Market reaction to mandatory nonfinancial disclosure. Manage Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Habisch A, Patelli L, Pedrini M, Schwartz C (2011) Different talks with different folks: a comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. J Bus Ethics 100:381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hahn R, Kühnen M (2013) Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J Clean Prod 59:5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hahn R, Reimsbach D, Schiemann F (2015) Organizations, climate change, and transparency: reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure. Organ Environ 28:80–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Haji AA (2013) Corporate social responsibility disclosures over time: evidence from Malaysia. Manag Auditing J 28:647–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hąbek P, Wolniak R (2016) Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Qual Quant 50:399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. IIRC—The International Integrated Reporting Council (2013) The international <IR> framework. https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  45. Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2017) The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Working paper (available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1799589)Google Scholar
  46. IÖW—Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (2016) Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung in Deutschland: Ergebnisse und Trends im Ranking der Nachhaltigkeitsberichte 2015. https://www.ioew.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BILDER_und_Downloaddateien/Publikationen/2018/Deutsche_Unternehmen_vor_der_CSR-Berichtspflicht_18.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  47. IÖW—Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (2018) Deutsche Unternehmen vor der CSR-Berichtspflicht: Monitoring zur nichtfinanziellen Berichterstattung. http://www.ranking-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.de/data/ranking/user_upload/2015/Ranking_Nachhaltigkeitsberichte_2015_Ergebnisbericht.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  48. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3:305–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jones TM (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad Manage Rev 20:404–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kerret D, Menahem G, Sagi R (2010) Effects of the design of environmental disclosure regulation on information provision: the case of Israeli securities regulation. Environ Sci Technol 44:8022–8029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Laplume AO, Sonpar K, Litz RA (2008) Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. J Manage 34:1152–1189Google Scholar
  52. Larrinaga C, Carrasco F, Correa C, Llena F, Moneva J (2002) Accountability and accounting regulation: the case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard. Eur Account Rev 11:723–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Laufer WS (2003) Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. J Bus Ethics 43:253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. LeBaron G, Rühmkorf A (2017) Steering CSR through home state regulation: a comparison of the impact of the UK bribery act and modern slavery act on global supply chain governance. Glob Policy 8:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leong S, Hazelton J, Taplin R, Timms W, Laurence D (2014) Mine site-level water reporting in the Macquarie and Lachlan catchments: a study of voluntary and mandatory disclosures and their value for community decision-making. J Clean Prod 84:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li Y, Foo CT (2015) A sociological theory of corporate finance. Chin Manag Stud 9:269–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Li Y, Zhang J, Foo CT (2013) Towards a theory of social responsibility reporting. Chin Manag Stud 7:519–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin KZ, Cheng S, Zhang F (2017) Corporate social responsibility, institutional environments, and tax avoidance: evidence from a subnational comparison in China. Int J Account 52:303–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Llena F, Moneva JM, Hernandez B (2007) Environmental disclosures and compulsory accounting standards: the case of Spanish annual reports. Bus Strategy Environ 16:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lock I, Seele P (2016) The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. J Clean Prod 122:186–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mamun MA, Shaikh JM, Easmin R (2017) Corporate social responsibility disclosure in Malaysian business. Acad Strateg Manag J 16:29–47Google Scholar
  62. Martínez-Ferrero J, García-Sánchez I‑M (2017) Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. Int Bus Rev 26:102–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Matisoff DC (2013) Different rays of sunlight: understanding information disclosure and carbon transparency. Energy Policy 55:579–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moneva JM, Cuellar B (2009) The value relevance of financial and non-financial environmental reporting. Environ Resour Econ 44:441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Noronha C, Tou S, Cynthia MI, Guan JJ (2012) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: an overview and comparison with major trends. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 20:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oll J, Hahn R, Reimsbach D, Kotzian P (2018) Tackling complexity in business and society research: the methodological and thematic potential of factorial surveys. Bus Soc 57:26–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parliament G (2017) Gesetz zur Stärkung der nichtfinanziellen Berichterstattung der Unternehmen in ihren Lage- und Konzernlageberichten (CSR-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz). http://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl117s0802.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  68. Pedersen ERG, Neergaard P, Pedersen JT, Gwozdz W (2013) Conformance and deviance: company responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility reporting. Bus Strategy Environ 22:357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Quick R, Knocinski M (2006) Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung – Empirische Befunde zur Berichterstattungspraxis von HDAX-Unternehmen. Z Betriebswirtsch 76:615–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomson Reuters (2018) Web of science: summary of coverage. https://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/coverage. Accessed 13 July 2018Google Scholar
  71. Venturelli A, Caputo F, Cosma S, Leopizzi R, Pizzi S (2017) Directive 2014/95/EU: are Italian companies already compliant? Sustainability 9:1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vormedal I, Ruud A (2009) Sustainability reporting in Norway—an assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Bus Strategy Environ 18:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang H, Bernell D (2013) Environmental disclosure in China: an examination of the Green Securities Policy. J Environ Dev 22:339–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Young S, Marais M (2012) A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: the implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corp Gov Int Rev 20:432–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Chair of Financial Accounting and AuditingPaderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations