Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Perspectives on the Development and Use of Sustainability Reports

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore corporate perspectives on the development and use of sustainability reports. Interviews with experts from 35 Canadian corporations were conducted. The research showed that the content of the reports was determined by following standards, conducting an internal evaluation, and other methods. Five corporations were found to develop fully integrated reports, while another 15 included some sustainability aspects in their annual reports. The extent of external stakeholder involvement in the development of the report varied widely, but the majority of the corporations considered stakeholder input. Data collection was handled by a number of different individuals and groups, with sustainability departments often taking a lead role. Twenty-five corporations relied exclusively on internal personnel to write the report, with the remaining corporations using a combination of internal and external writers. A number of key challenges in developing sustainability reports were identified, including timelines, data collection, selecting content, and striking an appropriate balance in reporting. The reports were used internally in a number of different ways, including enhancing employee awareness and engagement and as an internal reference tool. A number of potential future uses of sustainability reports were also mentioned, such as improving the ability to track real-time performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AccountAbility. (2008). AA1000 assurance standard 2008. London: AccountAbility.

    Google Scholar 

  • AccountAbility. (2011). AA1000 stakeholder engagement standard 2011: Final exposure draft. Available online: http://www.accountability.org/images/content/5/4/542/AA1000SES%202010%20PRINT.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2012.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32, 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2010). Network for business sustainability. Available online: http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/Primer_Business_Sustainability.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2012.

  • Bartels, W., Iansen-Rogers, J., & Kuszewski, J. (2008). Count me in: The readers’ take on sustainability reporting, KPMG and SustainAbility. Available online: http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/3F57ACC8-60D0-48F0-AF28-527F85A2A4B4/0/CountMeIn.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2010.

  • Beare, D., Buslovich, R., & Searcy, C. (in press). Linkages between corporate sustainability reporting and public policy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

  • Bebbington, J., Higgins, C., & Frame, B. (2009). Initiating sustainable development reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(4), 588–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthelot, S., Coulmont, M., & Serret, V. (2012). Do investors value sustainability reports? A Canadian study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,. doi:10.1002/csr.285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N. (2007). Histories of and rationales for sustainability reporting. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 57–69). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daub, C.-H. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G., & Searcy, C. (2010). A review of Canadian corporate sustainable development reports. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(2), 316–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2007). Organizational legitimacy as a motive for sustainability reporting. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 127–149). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice Canada. (2002). Public accountability statements (banks, insurance companies, trust and loan companies) regulations SOR/2002-133. Available online: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-133/FullText.html. Accessed 24 May 2012.

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. E. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines: Version 3.1. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardi, P., & DeSouza-Huletey, J. A. (2000). Issues in analyzing data and indicators for sustainable development. Ecological Modelling, 130, 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (1992). Business strategies for sustainable development. Winnipeg, Canada: IISD.

  • Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals' reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2010). Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011, KPMG. Available online: http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/2011-survey.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2012.

  • Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., Carrasco-Fenech, F., Caro-Gonzalez, F. J., Correa-Ruiz, C., & Paez-Sandubete, J. M. (2001). The role of environmental accounting in organizational change: An exploration of Spanish companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14(2), 213–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palme, U., & Tillman, A. (2008). Sustainable development indicators: How are they used in Swedish water utilities? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(13), 1346–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, F., & Sanchez, L. E. (2009). Assessing the evolution of sustainability reporting in the mining sector. Environmental Management, 43, 949–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowbottom, N., & Lymer, A. (2009). Exploring the use of online corporate sustainability information. Accounting Forum, 33, 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C. (2009). The role of sustainable development indicators in corporate decision-making. Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C. (2011). Updating corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Measuring Business Excellence, 15(2), 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C., & Buslovich, R. (2012). Corporate views on the future of sustainability reporting. American Society of Engineering Management Annual Conference. Virginia Beach, U.S.A, October 17–20, 2012.

  • Searcy, C., & Elkhawas, D. (2012). Corporate sustainability ratings: An investigation into how corporations use the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C., McCartney, D., & Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Sustainable development indicators for the transmission system of an electric utility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(3), 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., Bansal, P. (2010). Short on time: The role of time in business sustainability. Proceedings of the 69th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.

  • Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business-society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 263–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiller, Y., & Daub, C.-H. (2007). Paving the way for sustainable communication: Evidence from a Swiss study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 474–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). (2002). Sustainable development reporting: Striking the balance. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for funding that supported this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada

    Cory Searcy

  2. Environmental Applied Science and Management Program, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada

    Ruvena Buslovich

Authors
  1. Cory Searcy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruvena Buslovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cory Searcy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Searcy, C., Buslovich, R. Corporate Perspectives on the Development and Use of Sustainability Reports. J Bus Ethics 121, 149–169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1701-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1701-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation