Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 144, Issue 1, pp 59–82 | Cite as

Enhancing the Role and Effectiveness of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reports: The Missing Element of Content Verification and Integrity Assurance

  • S. Prakash Sethi
  • Terrence F. Martell
  • Mert Demir


Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting by large corporations has witnessed phenomenal growth over the last two decades. The voluntary nature of these disclosures, however, has led to inconsistencies in reporting formats, treatment, and inclusion of various contextual elements, and a lack of robust measures pertaining to the quality and accuracy of the reports’ content. Efforts to address these drawbacks such as Global Reporting Initiative and ISO 26000 have proven unsatisfactory due to their primary emphasis on process for creating CSR reports without similar attention on measurement criteria to ensure robust implementation, or verify accuracy of information. This paper attempts to fill this gap in the literature. It uses a new framework—called the CSR-Sustainability Monitor®—of analyzing and evaluating the contents of CSR reports in a manner that allows for a single report to be compared with any other single group, and groups of reports based on industry, country-of-origin, and similar other groupings. Using data from the CSR reports of 614 large corporations worldwide, this study analyzes the character and scope of integrity assurance contained in these CSR reports. The analysis is further extended to explore some external factors that would explain variations in the assurance decision and the quality of integrity assurance in these reports.


CSR reports CSR-S Monitor Sustainability reporting Integrity assurance Analytical and scoring frameworks Corporate social responsibility Corporate reputation, transparency, public trust, credibility 



Funding for this project was provided by the Weissman Center for International Business, and is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2004(14), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilar, J., Caspary, G., & Seiler, V. (2011). Implementing EITI at the sub national level: Emerging experience and operational framework. The World Bank, Extractive Industries for Development Series #23. World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  4. Ball, R. (2001). Infrastructure requirements for an economically efficient system of public financial reporting and disclosure. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services, 2001(1), 127–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballou, B., Heitger, D. L., & Landes, C. E. (2006). The future of corporate sustainability reporting: A rapidly growing assurance opportunity. Journal of Accountancy, 202(6), 65–74.Google Scholar
  6. Caron, M. A., & Turcotte, M. F. B. (2009). Path dependence and path creation: Framing the extra-financial information market for a sustainable trajectory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(2), 272–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, J. H., & Wong, T. J. (2007). Auditors’ governance functions and legal environments: An international investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(1), 13–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow, C. W. (1982). The demand for external auditing: Size, debt and ownership influences. The Accounting Review, 57(2), 272–291.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, K. S., & Schilke, O. (2010). The role of public, relational and organizational trust in economic affairs. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(2), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CPA Australia. (2004). Triple bottom line—A study of assurance statements worldwide. Melbourne: CPA Australia.Google Scholar
  11. De Beelde, I., & Tuybens, S. (2013). Enhancing the credibility of reporting on corporate social responsibility in Europe. Business Strategy and the Environment. doi: 10.1002/bse.1814.Google Scholar
  12. DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2011). Institutional pressures and organizational characteristics: Implications for environmental strategy. In P. Bansal & A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 231–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Durnev, A., & Kim, E. (2005). To steal or not to steal: Firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. The Journal of Finance, 60(3), 1461–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elango, B., & Sethi, S. P. (2007). An exploration into the relationship between country of origin (COE) and the internationalization-performance paradigm. Management International Review, 47(3), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2014, April 15). Non-financial reporting. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from EU Single Market thematic website on EUROPA from
  19. Federation of European Accountants. (2014, June). EU Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from FEE Factsheet, June 2014 issue:
  20. Francis, J. R., Khurana, I. K., Martin, X., & Pereira, R. (2008). The role of firm-specific incentives and country factors in explaining voluntary IAS adoptions: Evidence from private firms. European Accounting Review, 17(2), 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallup. (2014). Business and industry sector ratings.
  22. Giglio, L., & Sethi, S. P. (1997). Gaining competitive edge in international markets: A measurement of the “country of origin” effect on the performance of multinational corporations. Business and the Contemporary World, 9, 743–760.Google Scholar
  23. Gök, O., & Özkaya, H. (2011). Does corporate reputation improve stock performance in an emerging economy? Evidence from Turkey. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gond, J. P., & Herrbach, O. (2006). Social reporting as an organizational learning tool? A theoretical framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Governance, & Accountability Institute, I. (2014, June). Flash report: 72 % of S&P 500 companies now publishing sustainability/responsibility reports|Sustainability update. Retrieved from
  26. Grein, A., Sethi, S. P., & Tatum, L. G. (2010). A dynamic analysis of country clusters, the role of corruption, and implications for global firms. East-West Journal of Economics and Business, 13(2), 33–60.Google Scholar
  27. GRI. (2013). Regulating for a more sustainable future: New Norwegian CSR regulation entered into force. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from GRI website:
  28. GRI. (2014). GRI and ISO 26000: How to use the GRI guidelines in conjunction with ISO 26000. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from GRI website:
  29. Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). New York: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Hahn, R. (2012). Standardizing social responsibility? New perspectives on guidance documents and management system standards for sustainable development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 717–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hahn, R. (2013). ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hallström, K., & Boström, M. (2010). Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization: Organizing fragile non-state authority. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2003). ISAE 3000 (Revised). Assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information. New York: IFAC.Google Scholar
  35. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2010a). International Framework for Assurance Engagements (Framework). In Handbook of international quality control, auditing, review, other assurance, and related services pronouncements, part II. New York, NY: The International Federation of Accountants.Google Scholar
  36. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2010b). International Standards on Assurance Engagements ISAE 3000: Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information. In Handbook of international quality control, auditing, review, other assurance, and related services pronouncements, part II. New York, NY: The International Federation of Accountants.Google Scholar
  37. Kiron, D., & Kruschwitz, N. (2015). Sustainability reporting as a tool for better risk management. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  38. Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182–198.Google Scholar
  39. KPMG. (2008). KPMG international survey of corporate sustainability reporting. Available at
  40. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. The Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mishra, S., & Modi, S. B. (2013). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moratis, L., & Cochius, T. (2011). ISO 26000 the business guide to the new standard on social responsibility. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newburry, W., Gardberg, N. A., & Belkin, L. Y. (2006). Organizational attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder: The interaction of demographic characteristics with foreignness. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 666–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pentland, B. T. (2000). Will auditors take over the world? Program, technique and the verification of everything. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(3), 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perego, P. M. (2009). Causes and consequences of choosing different assurance providers: An international study of sustainability reporting. International Journal of Management, 26(3), 412–425.Google Scholar
  52. Perego, P., & Kolk, A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pflugrath G, Roebuck P, Simnett R (2011) Impact of assurance and assurer’s professional affiliation on financial analysts’ assessment of credibility of corporate social responsibility information. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30(3):239–254.Google Scholar
  54. Richards, T., & Dickson, D. (2007). Guidelines by stakeholders, for stakeholders. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25, 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruhnke, K., & Gabriel, A. (2013). Determinants of voluntary assurance on sustainability reports: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Economics, 83(9), 1063–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schepers, D. H. (2011). The equator principles: A promise in progress? Corporate Governance, 11(1), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sethi, S. P. (2005). The effectiveness of industry-based codes in serving public interest: the case of international council on mining and metals. Transnational Corporations, 14(3), 55–99.Google Scholar
  58. Sethi, S. P., & Elango, B. (1999). The influence of “country of origin” on multinational corporation global strategy: A conceptual framework. Journal of International Management, 5(4), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sethi, S. P., & Emelianova, O. (2011). Kimberley process certification scheme (KPCS): A voluntary multigroup initiative to control trade in conflict diamonds Globalization and self-regulation: the crucial role that corporate codes of conduct play in global business (pp. 213–248). New York City: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Sethi, S. P., & Schepers, D. H. (2011). United Nations global compact: An assessment of ten years of progress, achievements, and shortfalls. Globalization and Self-Regulation (pp. 249–275). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  61. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports: a thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(1), 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tucker, J. W. (2010). Selection bias and econometric remedies in accounting and finance research. Journal of Accounting Literature, Winter, 29, 31–57.Google Scholar
  64. Weissman Center for International Business. (2014). The CSR-Sustainability monitor. (Tech. Rep.). Weissman Center for International Business. Retrieved from
  65. Zorio, A., García-Benau, M. A., & Sierra, L. (2013). Sustainability development and the quality of assurance reports: Empirical evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 484–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Prakash Sethi
    • 1
  • Terrence F. Martell
    • 1
  • Mert Demir
    • 1
  1. 1.Weissman Center for International Business, Baruch CollegeThe City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations