Understanding the beliefs, actions and outcomes of sustainability reporting: An experimental approach
- 740 Downloads
IS researchers have identified substantial research gaps within the IS community regarding sustainability. Therefore, this paper pursues an experimental approach to investigate online sustainability reports (SRs) which are a common instrument for corporate sustainability communication. The applied research approach examines not only which properties of SRs enhance the readers’ willingness to read a SR, but also to what extent SRs can influence the readers’ actions and impact corporate image. Within the course of this paper, a belief-action-outcome (BAO) model and a corresponding experimental design, which examines SRs in three phases (i.e. before reading, during reading and after reading), are developed and conducted; subsequently the results are empirically analysed. Finally, implications for practitioners and researchers in the field of sustainability and especially sustainability reporting are demonstrated. Furthermore, possible starting points for future research are discussed. The results indicate that a sophisticated SR that satisfies the readers’ expectations has a significant impact on corporate image and the readers’ actions (i.e. buying and recommending products, investing and considering to work for the reporting company), which qualifies sustainability reporting as an important channel for corporate communication.
KeywordsSustainability reporting Experiment Corporate social responsibility Belief-action-outcome model Acceptance
The authors would like to thank the participants in the experiment as well as the other project members, specifically Ms. Marita Imhorst, who provided valuable insights, help and substantive feedback during the research process.
This work is part of the project IT-for-Green (Next Generation CEMIS for Environmental, Energy and Resource Management). The IT-for-Green project is funded by the European regional development fund (grant number W/A III 80119242).
- Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612.Google Scholar
- Bartels, W., Iansen-Rogers, J., & Kuszewski, J. (2008). Count me in—The readers’ take on sustainability reporting. http://www.kpmg.com/GR/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Sustainability/Documents/CountMeIn.pdf.
- Birkett, N. (1986). Selecting the number of response categories for a Likert-type scale. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 488–492). Washington DC.Google Scholar
- Brundtland Commission. (1987). In G. H. Brundtland (Ed.), Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Cater-Steel, A., & Tan, W.-G. (2010). The role of IT service management in Green IT. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 107–125.Google Scholar
- El-Gayar, O., & Fritz, B. D. (2006). Environmental management information systems (EMIS) for sustainable development: A conceptual overview. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1).Google Scholar
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Friedman, H. H., & Amoo, T. (1999). Rating the rating scales. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(3), 114–123.Google Scholar
- Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines 3.1. Global Reporting Initiative.Google Scholar
- Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
- Isenmann, R., Gómez, J. M., & Süpke, D. (2011). Making stakeholder dialogue for sustainability issues happen—Benefits, reference architecture and pilot implementation for automated sustainability reporting à la Carte. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
- Keith, M. J., Babb, J., Furner, C. P., & Abdullat, A. (2011). The role of mobile self-efficacy in the adoption of location-based applications: An iPhone experiment. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
- Kline, P. (1998). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present and future. Communications of the AIS, 12(50), 752–780.Google Scholar
- McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
- Melville, N. P. (2010). Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., & Ramamurthy, K. (2004). User satisfaction with system, decision process, and outcome in GDSS based meeting: An experimental investigation. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
- Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards for internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 243–256.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology—Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
- Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information systems and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and new directions for the IS community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23–38.Google Scholar