Skip to main content
Log in

Corporate perspectives on CSR disclosure: audience, materiality, motivations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The lack of uniform non-voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure standards and the complexity around different stakeholder demands have resulted in considerable flexibility in corporate compliance with CSR reporting. Covering a wide range of CSR dimensions, this paper investigates corporate views on CSR disclosure. Evidence presented is based on an online survey with 278 corporate professionals, who are familiar with corporate reporting in the UK, such as CSR professionals, managers, CEOs, CFOs and non-executive directors. The findings reveal the primacy of shareholder and institutional investor needs in CSR disclosure decisions. Some practitioners believe multiple reports are needed to ensure appropriate dissemination of CSR information. Fair business practice and environment-related information are perceived as the most important items to disclose. Whilst financial information remains paramount, the relative importance of reporting non-financial information has increased significantly, with the key areas relating to governance, health and safety, environmental impact and pollution control, and human rights information. For many participants, mandatory regulation is considered as the only way for CSR reporting to be taken seriously on the corporate level. This paper contributes to the limited studies that investigate the views of practitioners by means of primary data. The study complements the literature on CSR disclosure by intensifying the clarity of the understanding of corporate perspectives on CSR and by identifying potential factors that influence CSR reporting decisions in the UK context. The findings strengthen the arguments of prior studies about what items of information should be included in CSR reports and how to disclose the company’s CSR information in a more substantive way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackers, B. 2017. Independent corporate social responsibility assurance: A response to soft laws, or influenced by company size and industry sector? International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 14: 278–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. 2002. Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15 (2): 223–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., and N. Kuasirikun. 2000. A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. European Accounting Review 9 (1): 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., and A. Zutshi. 2004. Corporate social responsibility: Why business should act responsibly and be accountable. Australian Accounting Review 14 (3): 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., W. Hill, and C. Roberts. 1998. Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behaviour? The British Accounting Review 30 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., P. Druckman, and R. Picot. 2020. Sustainable Development Goal Disclosure (SDGD) Recommendations, by ACCA, Chartered Accountants ANZ, ICAS, IFAC, IIRC and WBA, available at: https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Adams_Druckman_Picot_2020_Final_SDGD_Recommendations.pdf. Accessed 20.11.2020

  • Adams, C.A., A. Alhamood, X. He, J. Tian, L. Wang, and Y. Wang. 2021. The Double-Materiality Concept: Application and Issues. Project Report. Published by the Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/media/jrbntbyv/griwhitepaper-publications.pdf

  • Board Agenda (2018) Leadership in Corporate Sustainability—European Report 2018”. Available at: https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/centres/icgc/docs/leadership-in-corporate-sustainability-european-report-2018.pdf. Accessed 24.07.2019.

  • Alotaibi, K., and K. Hussainey. 2016. Determinants of CSR disclosure quantity and quality: Evidence from non-financial listed firms in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 13 (4): 364–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou, S., A. Tsekrekos, and G. Voulgaris. 2020. Accounting conservatism and corporate social responsibility”. The British Accounting Review 100942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100942.

  • Arvidsson, S. 2010. Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics 96 (3): 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, B., D. Heitger, and C. Landes. 2006. The future of corporate sustainability reporting: A rapidly growing assurance opportunity. Journal of Accountancy 202 (6): 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassen, A., K. Gödker, F. Lüdeke-Freund, and J. Oll. 2019. Climate Information in Retail Investors’ Decision-Making: Evidence From a Choice Experiment. Organization & Environment 32 (1): 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026618771669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, V. and K. Pratt. 2002. Voluntary annual report disclosures: what users want. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, Bell&Bain, Glasgow.

  • Bebbington, J., C. Larrinaga-Gonzalez, and J. Moneva-Abadia. 2008a. Corporate social reporting and reputational risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (3): 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., C. Larrinaga-Gonzalez, and J. Moneva-Abadia. 2008b. Legitimating reputation/the reputation of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (3): 371–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, P., and S. Bala. 2015. General investors’ views of information sources in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 12: 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2014.7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. 2013. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26 (7): 1036–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., I. Heras-Saizarbitoria, M. Brotherton, and J. Bernard. 2019. Ethical Issues in the Assurance of Sustainability Reports: Perspectives from Assurance Providers. Journal of Business Ethics 159 (4): 1111–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozzolan, S., C. Cho, and G. Michelon. 2015. Impression Management and Organizational Audiences: The Fiat Group Case. Journal of Business Ethics 126 (1): 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., and S. Pavelin. 2008. Factors Influencing the Quality of Corporate Environmental Disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (2): 120–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C., and I. Oikonomou. 2018. The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance. The British Accounting Review 50 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. 2004. A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of environmental disclosure in UK companies—a research note. The British Accounting Review 36 (1): 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., and R. Slack. 2008. Narrative Reporting: Analysts’ Perceptions of its Value and Relevance - Research Report 104. Available at: https://www.accaglobal.com/pk/en/technical-activities/technical-resources-search/2008/january/narrative-reporting.html. Accessed 12.10.2017.

  • Carroll, A. 2016. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 1 (3): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A., J. Brown, and A. Buchholtz. 2018. Business & Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management, 10th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C., and M. Milne. 1999. Investor Reactions to Corporate Environmental Saints and Sinners: An Experimental Analysis. Accounting and Business Research 29 (4): 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M., J. Watson, and D. Woodliff. 2014. Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 125 (1): 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S., and C. Lee. 2019. Managerial Efficiency, Corporate Social Performance, and Corporate Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 158 (2): 467–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., and D. Patten. 2007. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organization and Society 32 (7/8): 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., G. Michelon, D. Patten, and R. Roberts. 2012. Impression Management in Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest 12 (1): 16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., G. Michelon, D. Patten, and R. Roberts. 2014. CSR report assurance in the USA: An empirical investigation of determinants and effects. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 5 (2): 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., K. Bohr, T. Choi, K. Partridge, J. Shah, and A. Swierszcz. 2020. Advancing Sustainability Reporting in Canada: 2019 Report on Progress. Accounting Perspectives 19 (3): 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., G. Michelon, and Y. Tanaka. 2013. Does environmental disclosure influence cost of capital? An empirical investigation of Japanese companies. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference.

  • Clarke, J., and M. Gibson-Sweet. 1999. The use of corporate social disclosures in the management of reputation and legitimacy: A cross sectoral analysis of UK Top 100 Companies. Business Ethics: A European Review 8 (1): 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P.M., Y. Li, G.D. Richardson, and F.P. Vasvari. 2008. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (4–5): 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P., X. Fang, Y. Li, and G. Richardson. 2013. The relevance of environmental disclosures: Are such disclosures incrementally informative? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 32 (5): 410–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P., Y. Li, G. Richardson, and A. Tsang. 2019. Causes and consequences of voluntary assurance of CSR reports: International evidence involving Dow Jones Sustainability Index Inclusion and Firm Valuation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 32 (8): 2451–2474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., L. Holder-Webb, L. Nath, and D. Wood. 2011. Retails investors’ perceptions of the decision-usefulness of economic performance, governance, and corporate social responsibility disclosures. Behavioural Research in Accounting 23 (1): 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., L. Holder-Webb, and V. Zamora. 2015. Nonfinancial information preferences of professional investors. Behavioural Research in Accounting 27 (2): 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., L. Holder-Webb, and S. Khalil. 2017. A Further Examination of the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility and Governance on Investment Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 146 (1): 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission. 2020. Consultation Document: Review of the Non-financial Reporting Directive. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/finance-consultations-2020-non-financialreporting-directive_en.

  • Contrafatto, M., J. Ferguson, D. Power, L. Stevenson, and D. Collison. 2019. Understanding power-related strategies and initiatives: The case of the European Commission Green Paper on CSR. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33 (3): 559–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M.P. 2000. Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (4): 464–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R., A. Dayanandan, and H. Donker. 2014. Materiality disclosure and litigation risks: A Canadian perspective. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 11: 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review 2 (3): 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, C., and J. Fraas. 2013. An Exploratory Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility and Disclosure. Business and Society 52 (2): 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., and B. Gordon. 1996. A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Accounting and Business Research 26 (3): 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., and M. Rankin. 1997. The Materiality of Environmental Information to Users of Annual Reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10 (4): 562–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., M. Rankin, and P. Voght. 2000. Firms disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum 24 (1): 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, D., R. Sassen, and J. Fischer. 2016. What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 7 (2): 154–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilla, W., D. Janvrin, J. Perkins, and R. Raschke. 2019. Do environmental responsibility views influence investors’ use of environmental performance and assurance information? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 10 (3): 476–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, P. 2018. Corporate reporting and accounting for externalities: A practitioner view. Accounting and Business Research 48 (5): 523–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. and T. Youmans. 2015. Materiality in Corporate Governance: The statement of significant audiences and materiality. Working paper 16-023. Available at: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/materiality-in-corporate-governance-the-statement-of-significant-audiences-and-materiality (accessed 24.01.2019).

  • Edie. 2019. Sustainable Business Leadership Survey 2019. Available at: https://www.edie.net/downloads/Business-Leadership-Survey-2019/361. Accessed 24.07.2019.

  • Epstein, M., and A. Buhovac. 2014. Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts, 2nd ed. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M., and M. Freedman. 1994. Social disclosure and the individual investor. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 7 (4): 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, and Ernst. 1978. Social responsibility disclosure: Surveys of Fortune 500 annual reports, Ernst and Ernst, Cleveland, OH.

  • IFRS Foundation. 2021. About the International Sustainability Standards Board. Available from https://www.ifrs.org/groups/international-sustainability-standards-board/

  • Gao, F., Y. Dong, C. Ni, and R. Fu. 2016. Determinants and Economic Consequences of Non-financial Disclosure Quality. European Accounting Review 25 (2): 287–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girerd-Potin, I., S. Jimenez-Garceś, and P. Louvet. 2014. Which Dimensions of Social Responsibility Concern Financial Investors? Journal of Business Ethics 121 (4): 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., and J. Bebbington. 2001. Accounting for the Environment, 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S., L. Campbell, and J. Shaw. 1984. International Financial Reporting: A Comparative International Survey of Accounting Requirements and Practices in 30 Countries. Hampshire: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • GRI. 2013. Sustainability topics for sectors: what do stakeholders want to know? Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/sustainability-topics.pdf (accessed 24.07.2017).

  • GRI. 2021. A Short Introduction to the GRI Standards. Available from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/universal-standards/

  • GRI database. 2020. Available at: https://database.globalreporting.org/. Accessed 03.12.2020.

  • Haider, M.B., and K. Nishitani. 2020. Views of corporate managers on assurance of sustainability reporting: Evidence from Japan. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 17: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-019-00070-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., and H. Jo. 2011. Corporate Governance and CSR Nexus. Journal of Business Ethics 100 (1): 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanein, A., A. Zalata, and K. Hussainey. 2019. Do forward-looking narratives affect investors’ valuation of UK FTSE all-shares firms? Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 52 (2): 493–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., J. R. Cohen, L. Nath, and D. Wood. 2009. The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics 84(4): 497–527.

  • Hooghiemstra, R. 2000. Corporate communication and impression management—new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27 (1–2): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huimin, G., and C. Ryan. 2011. Ethics and corporate social responsibility—an analysis of the views of Chinese hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (4): 875–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels, H., and D. Timmer. 2004. Investors in Need of Social, Ethical, and Environmental Information. Journal of Business Ethics 52: 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. 2011. Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 103 (3): 385–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICAEW. 2009. Turning questions into answers environmental issues and annual financial reporting. Available at: https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/sustainability/environmental-issues-and-annual-financial-reporting-2009.ashx?la=en. Accessed 27.07.2019.

  • ICAEW. 2017. What’s next for corporate reporting: time to decide? Financial reporting faculty. Available at: https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/archive/files/technical/financial-reporting/information-for-better-markets/whats-next-for-corporate-reporting.ashx. Accessed 21.07.2019.

  • IEMA. 2016. The Corporate Sustainability Challenge: Beyond the Perfect Storm. Available at: https://www.iema.net/assets/newbuild/documents/IEMA%20Corporate%20Sustainability%20Report%202016%20rebranded.pdf. Accessed 28.07.2019.

  • Ioannou, I. and G. Serafeim. 2011. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper No. 11-100: 1–44.

  • Jensen, M.C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Finance 3 (4): 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A.F., and A. Atkinson. 1987. Managerial Attitudes to Social Responsibility: A Comparative Study in India and Britain. Journal of Business Ethics 6 (6): 419–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konadu, R., G.S. Ahinful, and S. Owusu-Agyei. 2021. Corporate governance pillars and business sustainability: Does stakeholder engagement matter? International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 18: 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00115-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. 2015. Currents of change: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015. Available at: https://home.kpmg/cz/en/home/insights/2015/11/kpmg-international-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2015.html

  • KPMG. 2017. The road ahead: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Available at: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/campaigns/2017/10/survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.html. Accessed 24.07.2019.

  • KPMG. 2020. The time has come: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2020. Available at: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/11/the-time-has-come-survey-of-sustainability-reporting.html. Accessed 03.12.2020.

  • Lee, M. 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews 10 (1): 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legislation.gov.uk. 2021. Companies Act 2006. [online] Available from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172/2012-07-02. Accessed 24.12.21.

  • Leung, S., L. Parker, and J. Courtis. 2015. Impression management through minimal narrative disclosure in annual reports. British Accounting Review 47 (3): 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B., C. Petrovits, and S. Radhakrishnan. 2010. Is doing good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal 31 (2): 182–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindrianasari, and R.W. Adriyanto. 2010. Manager’s perception of the importance of environmental accounting and its effect on the quality of corporate environmental accounting disclosures: Case from Indonesia. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 4 (1): 74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lydenberg, S. 2013. Responsible Investors: Who They Are, What They Want. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 25 (3): 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangalagiri, J., and M.P. Bhasa. 2022. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Evidence from India’s national stock exchange listed companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 19: 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00138-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., M. Toffel, and Y. Zhou. 2016. Scrutiny, Norms, and Selective Disclosure: A Global Study of Greenwashing. Organization Science 27 (2): 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, D., and P. Martin. 2012. A broader perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting. The Accounting Review 87 (3): 797–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., and D. Moser. 2016. Managers’ green investment disclosures and investors’ reaction. Journal of Accounting and Economics 61 (1): 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkl-Davies, D., and N. Brennan. 2007. Discretionary Disclosure Strategies in Corporate Narratives: Incremental Information or Impression Management? Journal of Accounting Literature 27: 116–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., S. Pilonato, and F. Ricceri. 2015. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33: 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., D. Patten, and A. Romi. 2019. Creating Legitimacy for Sustainability Assurance Practices: Evidence from Sustainability Restatements. European Accounting Review 28 (2): 395–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murninghan, M., and T. Grant. 2013. Corporate Responsibility and The New “Materiality.” Corporate Board 34 (203): 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, A., D. Sinclair, D. Power, and R. Gray. 2006. Do financial markets care about social and environmental disclosure? Further evidence and exploration from the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19 (2): 228–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, L.T., A. Doan, and M. Frömmel. 2021. Boards of directors and corporate sustainability performance: Evidence from the emerging East Asian markets. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 18: 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00102-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J., and I. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, G. 2002. Environmental disclosures in the annual report. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15 (3): 344–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. 2002. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15 (3): 406–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. 2011. The case of sustainability assurance: Constructing a new assurance service. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (4): 1230–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. 2020. Shifting the focus of sustainability accounting from impacts to risks and dependencies: Researching the transformative potential of TCFD reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33 (5): 1113–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2011. The Role of Institutional Investors in Promoting Good Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264128750-en. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/49081553.pdf. Accessed 07.08.2019.

  • ONS. 2020. Ownership of UK Quoted Shares: 2018. Office for National Statistics. Available from https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/investmentspensionsandtrusts/bulletins/ownershipofukquotedshares/2018. Accessed 01.05.2021.

  • Oppenheim, A.N. 1966. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. 2014. Corporate social accountability through action: Contemporary insights from British industrial pioneers. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (8): 632–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, D.M. 1992. Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organisations and Society 17 (5): 471–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PGS. 2013. Determining materiality: a key for corporate sustainability. Available from http://www.pgsadvisors.com/2013/07/determining-materiality-a-key-tool-for-corporate-sustainability/. Accessed 30.10.2020

  • Prencipe, A. 2004. Proprietary Costs and Determinants of Voluntary Segment Disclosure: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. European Accounting Review 13 (2): 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qui, Y., A. Shaukat, and R. Tharyan. 2016. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review 48: 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, K., L. Chase, and S. Karim. 2012. Why every company needs a CSR strategy ad how to build it. Working paper 12-088. Available at: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/why-every-company-needs-a-csr-strategy-and-how-to-build-it. Accessed 24.07.2019.

  • Rodgers, W., H. Choy, and A. Guiral. 2013. Do Investors Value a Firm’s Commitment to Social Activities? Journal of Business Ethics 114 (4): 607–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J., and R. Herz. 2013. Corporate Disclosure of Material Information: The Evolution-and the Need to Evolve Again. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 25 (3): 50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M. and P. Lewis. 2012. Doing research in business and management an essential guide to planning your project, eBook, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow, New York.

  • Sharma, P., P. Panday, and R.C. Dangwal. 2020. Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure: A study of Indian companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 17: 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00085-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, M.D., and J.G. Jenkins. 2020. The influence of firm performance and (level of) assurance on the believability of management’s environmental report. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33 (3): 501–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J.F., A. Solomon, N.L. Joseph, and S.D. Norton. 2013. Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38 (3): 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprinkle, G., and L. Maines. 2010. The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons 53 (5): 445–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A., and A. Inkpen. 2004. The Corporate Objective Revisited. Organization Science 15 (3): 350–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschopp, D., and R.J. Huefner. 2015. Comparing the Evolution of CSR Reporting to that of Financial Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 127: 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2054-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2019. The Sustainable Development Agenda. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/. Accessed 10.08.2019.

  • Verrecchia, R. 1983. Discretionary Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 (1): 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., and J. Sun. 2022. The role of audit committees in social responsibility and environmental disclosures: Evidence from Chinese energy sector. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 19: 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00131-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, L. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Views from the Frontline. Journal of Business Ethics 63: 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willaert, T. 2016. New: GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards - Overview of the main changes. Available from https://www.dqsglobal.com/intl/blog/new-gri-sustainability-reporting-standards-overview-of-the-main-changes

  • Xiao, X. and G. Shailer. 2022. Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors affecting the credibility of sustainability reports. The British Accounting Review 54(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2021.101002

  • Zahller, K., V. Arnold, and R. Roberts. 2015. Using CSR disclosure quality to develop social resilience to exogenous shocks: A test of investor perceptions. Behavioural Research in Accounting 27 (2): 155–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zouari, G., and K. Dhifi. 2021. The impact of board characteristics on integrated reporting: Case of European companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 18: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00105-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zu, L., and L. Song. 2009. Determinants of managerial values on Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1): 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their expert advice to improve the paper. We would like to gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments and support provided by Prof Christine Helliar, as part of the BAFA Accounting Education SIG Mentorship programme. We are also thankful for the helpful suggestions and constructive comments provided at different earlier stages of this research by Nina Seppala, Shrabani Saha, Ted Fuller, Giovanna Michelon, Khaled Hussainey, Fadi Alkaraan, Mahfuzur Rahman and Rebecca Herron. Special thanks go to the research participants for generously giving up their time and the willingness to share their views.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadia Gulko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study involving human participants was performed in accordance with the institutional ethical standards and guidelines. The ethics approval was granted on 09.05.2017.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 35 kb)

Appendices

Appendix A

Variables and statements

Variable

Items included

N of items included

Related H

Cronbach’s α

Audience

CSR: individual investors

Corporate social responsibility information is important for investment decisions of individual (PRIVATE) investors

Individual (PRIVATE) investors rely on a company’s corporate social responsibility information in investment decision-making

Corporate social responsibility information is material for individual (PRIVATE) investors

3 items

H1b

0.790

CSR: institutional investors

Corporate social responsibility information is important for investment decisions of institutional investors

Institutional investors rely on a company’s corporate social responsibility information in investment decision-making

Corporate social responsibility information is material for institutional investors

3 items

H1b

0.806

CSR audience factor

Existing shareholders

Institutional (professional) investors

Individual (private) investors

Regulators

Other stakeholders (e.g. employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, local community, creditors)

5 items

H1a

0.722a

6 CSR themes

environment, energy, human resources, products, community and fair business practice

6 items

H1c

0.788

Materiality

Materiality: financial vs non-financial information

Profits

Net assets

Cash flow disclosures

Dividend payments

Market share b

Environmental impact/pollution control

Health and safety issues

Environmental policies

Employee policies

Human rights informationb

Governanceb

Cost of environmental programmes

Product quality/safety-related information

Product innovationb

Cost of environmental compliance

Community involvement

16

items

H2a

0.841

Materiality: companies’ responsibilities towards CSR

Business has social and environmental responsibilities beyond making a profit

The fact that corporations have great economic power in society means that they have social and environmental responsibilities beyond the interests of their shareholders

2 items c

H2b

0.699

Materiality: cost of CSR information

The cost of providing information about a company’s social or environmental activities in publicly available sources is higher than the benefits of this to the company

It is financially challenging for companies to provide external users with sufficient information about a company’s social and environmental activities

Corporate social responsibility reporting is too costly for companies

3 items

H2h

0.814

Materiality: improvement of CSR information

Reliability of corporate social responsibility information has improved over the last 10 years

Quality of corporate social responsibility information has improved over the last 10 years

2 items

H2e

0.873

Materiality: Regulation of CSR

Making environmental information as a mandatory and regulated component of corporate rereporting would be a positive change

Making social information as a mandatory and regulated component of corporate rereporting would be a positive change

Quality of corporate social responsibility rereporting will improve if rereporting is made mandatory for all companies

Reliability of corporate social responsibility rereporting will improve if rereporting is made mandatory for all companies

4 items

H2f

0.801

Materiality: CSR activities

Ethics, governance, transparency, business relationships, financial return to investors and lenders, community involvement and economic development, value of products and services, employment practices, protection of the environment

9 items d

H2d

0.763

Materiality: high-risk vs low-risk industries

Engagement with social and environmental activities is more important for companies from high-risk industries

Companies from high-risk industries should provide more social and environmental information in publicly available sources than low-risk companies

Companies from high-risk industries should be more concerned about social and environmental activities than other companies

3 items

H2g

0.784

Materiality: CSR value in the long term

Engagement with corporate social responsibility activities creates long-term value for companies

Investment in corporate social responsibility activities leads too positive outcomes in the long-term

2 items

H2c

0.730

Motivations

Investor influence

CSR reporting is a good way to influence investors’ opinions

CSR reporting is a good way to enhance shareholder value

CSR reporting is a good way to satisfy investors’ demands on CSR information

3 items

H3

0.812

Stakeholder influence

CSR reporting is a good way to influence stakeholder perceptions

CSR reporting is a good way to manage important stakeholders

CSR reporting is a good way to satisfy various stakeholders demands on CSR information

3 items

H3

0.749

Compliance

CSR reporting is a good way to comply with legal requirements

CSR reporting is a good way to comply with industry requirements

CSR reporting is a good way to comply with Global Reporting Initiative principles

3 items

H3

0.741

Corporate image and reputation

CSR reporting is a good way to receive positive publicity through demonstration of good citizenship

CSR reporting is a good way to enhance corporate image

CSR reporting is a good way to improve company’s reputation

3 items

H3

0.932

Financial

CSR reporting can lead to financial benefits

CSR reporting can improve a company’s financial performance and economic success

A company’s increased CSR reputation can lead to better financial performance

3 items

H3

0.889

  1. aThe Cronbach’s alpha of investor-related users (items 1, 2, 3)
  2. bThese four items were added in addition to 12 areas adapted from Deegan and Rankin (1997)
  3. cAdapted from Huimin and Ryan (2011)
  4. dAdapted from Epstein and Buhovac (2014)

Appendix B

Summary of hypotheses testing results

Hypotheses detail

Result

Audience

 

1a

CSR information in corporate reporting is primarily focused on existing shareholders and institutional investors rather than wider stakeholders

Supported

1b

CSR information in corporate reporting is more oriented towards institutional investors rather than individual investors

Supported

1c

Environment-related information is considered the most important content in CSR reporting when targeting private investors

Supported

Materiality

 

2a

Reporting of financial information is perceived by corporate managers in the UK as more important than reporting of social and environmental information

Supported

2b

Companies have social and environmental responsibilities beyond making a profit and the interests of their shareholders

Supported

2c

Engagement in CSR activities creates value for companies in the long term

Supported

2d

Environment protection is considered as the most important CSR activity

Partially supported

2e

CSR reporting in terms of quality and reliability has improved over the last 10 years

Supported

2f

CSR reporting will improve if it is made mandatory

Supported

2 g

CSR reporting is more important for companies from high-risk industries

Partially supported

2 h

CSR reporting is perceived as an extra cost for companies

Not supported

Motivations

 

3

Enhancing corporate public image is perceived by managers as the key motivation in CSR reporting

Supported

  1. Source: compiled by the authors

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gulko, N., Hyde, C. Corporate perspectives on CSR disclosure: audience, materiality, motivations. Int J Discl Gov 19, 389–412 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-022-00157-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-022-00157-1

Keywords

Navigation