Upload
ramirali
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
1/17
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
2/17
academic interest as well. Nevertheless, the literature is still limited
in quantity and no major reviews of the latest developments have
been presented so far.
There have been some recent attempts to examine the eld of
sustainability-related reporting. However, they were mainly con-
ducted from a specic focus on accounting (not reporting) issues
(Berthelot et al., 2003; Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Deegan and
Soltys, 2007; Lee and Hutchison, 2005; Owen, 2008; Parker,
2005; Spence et al., 2010). These reviews are limited for three
additional reasons: They did not disclose a rigorous method of
literature review (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Lee and Hutchison,
2005; Owen, 2008; Parker, 2005; Spence et al., 2010), they are
restricted to very few (usually accounting) journals or even articles
(Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Deegan and Soltys, 2007; Owen,
2008; Parker, 2005) and/or they specically focused on single is-
sues (Berthelot et al., 2003; Deegan and Soltys, 2007; Lee and
Hutchison, 2005). Beyond accounting journals, only two other re-
views could be found. Starting with literature from the 1970s,
Fifka (2013) reviews empirical research on corporate social re-
sponsibility (CSR) reporting and examines whether researchers
from different regions apply different methodological approaches
and therefore come to different results. Fifka (2012) aims at
providing insight into the chronological development and charac-teristics of empirical research on sustainability-related reporting in
the last 40 years. In contrast to the latter two, we will specically
investigate contemporary empirical and conceptual research
starting with the year 1999 when the rst version of the GRI sus-
tainability reporting guidelines was published. By conning to
more recent scientic publications on sustainability reporting
dating from 1999 to 2011, our review is not inuenced by historical
changes in the corporate and societal environment. Instead it
provides an up-to-date portrait of today’s research landscape of
sustainability and CSR reporting. To achieve this, a structured
search for literature was conducted.
We contribute to literature by answering the question “what are
general trends and relations in extant literature?” We specically
distinguish factors which inuence the adoption, the extent, andthe quality of reporting because these proved to be the main
themes in contemporary studies. We identify the few determinants
(most notably company’s size, visibility, and sector-af liation) that
are covered by a signicant amount of studies and show consistent
results which allow clear conclusions. Furthermore, we contribute
by offering detailed insights on (in)consistencies with regard to
other determinants such as protability or indebtedness. Based on
our ndings, we provide a detailed link to theory which is often
missing or only rudimentary existing in extant research
(Hooghiemstra, 2000; Spence et al., 2010). Specically, we discuss
the usability and potential contribution of legitimacy, stakeholder,
signaling, and institutional theory for future research. Finally, we
contribute by introducing a set of potential research themes by
providing an overview over gaps and underexposed themes inextant research especially on the inuence of managerial attitudes
and culture, regulation and governance, and in relation to the
quality of sustainability reporting.
The paper is structured as follows: First, the research method-
ology as well as the basic terminology is described. Then a
descriptive analysis of extant literature is provided considering the
distribution of papers over time, the addressed sustainability di-
mensions, the publication outlets, and the methodological ap-
proaches. To illustrate the current state of knowledge we will then
specically address determinants of sustainability reporting and
discuss the main research ndings. We continueby providing an in-
depth link to theory and by portraying signicant gaps in current
research to illustrate opportunities and challenges for future
research before concluding the paper.
2. Research method
A literature review aims at revealing trends, relations, in-
consistencies, and gaps in the literature in order to organize and
evaluate existing work in a particular eld. Before we turn to the
specic methodological issues we will delineate the basic termi-
nology to establish understanding of the concepts involved (2.1).
For conducting the review we followed the approach suggested by
Fink (2010): In the rst step, we selected our research questions,
databases, as well as search terms (2.2). Secondly, we used practical
screening criteria to include or exclude studies from the review
(2.3). In the third step, we developed and applied methodological
screening criteria in order to analyze a study’s content (2.4). Finally,
we synthesized and assessed our ndings (Sections 3e5).
2.1. Basic terminology
In the following, we will set the stage by picturing a framework
of basic terminology and concepts (see Fig. 1).
The initial starting point for any considerations on sustainability
or CSR reporting lies in the overarching (normative) concepts of
sustainability and CSR. To provide a distinct reference point weadopt the latest denition of CSR by the European Commission
which regards CSR as “the responsibility of enterprises for their
impacts on society . to integrate social, environmental, ethical,
human rights and consumer concerns into their business opera-
tions and core strategy” (European Commission, 2011: 6). Quite
similarly, ISO 26000da worldwide standard for social responsibi-
litydcharacterizes social responsibility as “responsibility of an or-
ganization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society
and the environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour”(International Organization for Standardization, 2010: 3) while
directly referring to the maximization of the contribution to sus-
tainable development as the “overarching objective for an organi-
zation” (p. 10).2 These characterizations provide direct links to
sustainability thinking. Following the historical characterization of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which
puts intra- and intergenerational justice in the middle of thinking,
Dyllick and Hockerts (2002: 131) dene corporate sustainability as
“meeting the needs of a rm’s direct and indirect stakeholders .,
without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future
stakeholders as well”. To achieve this goal, companies need “to
maintain their economic, social and environmental capital base”(Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002: 132) which directly refers to
Elkington’s (1997) triple-bottom-line (TBL) thinking. Lozano and
Huisingh (2011) present an even more holistic perspective on
sustainability by explicitly including a fourth time-dimension
focusing on “short-, long- and longer-term perspectives.” They
propose that there are dynamic and simultaneous interrelations
within and between the TBL dimensions, not only at certain points
in time but also over time. In sum, all four dimensionsdincluding
the timedinterrelate at equilibrium. As can be seen from these
characterizations, sustainability and CSR gradually converge (Hahn,
2011) and thus this literature review considers sustainability
(reporting) and CSR (reporting) as consistent concepts.
Based on such a normative grounding, the specic corporate
performance in the area of sustainability and CSR is measured by
means of sustainability accounting. Sustainability(-related) ac-
counting comprises those information management and
2 Here again, the different focus on “organizations” in general (as by the Inter-
national Organization for Standardization) and on “companies” in particular (as by
the European Commission) come to the fore. See again Footnote 1 for our
perspective on the interchangeable use of both terms.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 2
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
3/17
accounting methods which aim at the creation of high quality data
supporting internal decision-making concerning corporate sus-
tainability. On the basis of reliable accounting data, sustainability-
related reporting then provides and substantiates information
about the status and progress of corporate sustainability towards
internal and external stakeholders through formalized means of
communication (Schaltegger et al., 2006). Although sustainability-related accounting and reporting have received increasing rele-
vance in business and academia, our focus is on the latter since the
disclosure and the internal/external communication of sustain-
ability information directly contribute to a company’s supply of
critical resources from various stakeholders (Herzig and
Schaltegger, 2006; Deegan, 2002). In this respect, sustainability
accounting makes an indirect contribution because it primarily
aims at the internal measurement of organizational sustainability
performance (Lamberton, 2005), thus serving as a foundation of
sustainability reporting.
Current sustainability-related reporting practice is primarily of
voluntary nature so that companies are exible in experimenting
with disclosing information (Chen and Bouvain, 2009). In light of
this discretionary latitude, corporate reporting practice has led toan abundance of labels for recent reports (e.g., Corporate Citizen-
ship Report, Corporate (Social) Responsibility Report, Sustainable
Development Report, Sustainable Value Report, and Sustainability
Report) which also points to the above mentioned similarities of
sustainability and CSR as normative concepts. This is not surprising
given the abundance of efforts to characterizeany of the mentioned
terms (see, e.g., Dahlsrud, 2008) and we acknowledge this ambi-
guity by relying on an extensive keyword search as described
below. There is an increasing trend towards multidimensional
reporting (Kolk, 2010) and recently even integrated reporting
(which integrates sustainability information together with tradi-
tional nancial information in a single report to provide a holistic
picture of value creation over time) (KPMG, 2011; Integrated
Reporting Committee of South Africa, 2011). Nevertheless,
one-dimensional reporting (e.g., Environment Reports, Financial
Reports) still remains existent. However, only those reports
that simultaneously include all three dimensions of sustainability
can truly be regarded as “sustainability reporting” while one-
dimensional reports are merely sustainability-related because
they cover only isolated aspects of sustainability. In this sense, so-
called “sustainability reports” also often exclude important as-pects especially from the economic pillar which are usually dis-
closed in separate annual reports.3
The literature on sustainability reporting mirrors this termino-
logical inconsistency. This might be the case because sustainability
reporting guidelines tend to create compartmentalization among
the dimensions of sustainability while overlooking inter-linkages
(Lozano and Huisingh, 2011; Lozano, 2013). Here again, the rele-
vance of the GRI guidelines as a de facto standard guiding the design
of sustainability reports comes to the fore. The guidelines cover all
the mentioned labels for respective reports and offer a unilateral
standard for non-nancial reporting which can be voluntarily used
by the issuers of the respective reports to achieve certain stan-
dardization in the eld. The GRI as a network of experts from
different stakeholder groups thus aims at providing a “globallyshared framework of concepts, consistent language, and metrics” to
“communicate clearly and openly about sustainability” (GRI, 2011b:
3). However, the GRI has a focus on environmental and social issues
while covering only few and rather general economic indicators
leaving more detailed and pronounced rules for reporting on eco-
nomic issues to existing regulatory frameworks for nancial
reporting (e.g., US GAAP, IFRS).
Sustainability Corporate Social Responsibility
• Triple Bottom Line
• Intra- and Intergenerational Justice
• Inter-linkages among the TBL- and
time-dimensions at equilibrium
(Four-Dimensionality)
(Corporate Responsibility, Corporate
Citizenship)
Accounting related to Sustainability (CSR)
Reporting related to Sustainability (CSR)
in the form of covering
- Integrated reports Three sustainability dimensions(financial, ecological, and social at
equilibrium)
- Specialized sustainability, CSR,
corporate citizenship etc. reportsTwo sustainability dimensions(focus on ecological and social; financial
rather neglected)- Isolated environmental or social
reportsOne sustainability dimension(ecological or social)
N o r m a t i v e
r e f e r e n c e a n d
s t a r t i n g p o i n t
I n t e r n a l
p e r f o r m a n c e
m e a s u r e m e n t
E x t e r n a l
i n f o r m a t i o n
d i s c l o s u r e
Focus of
literature review
holistic
isolated
E x t e n
t o f s u s t a i n a b i l i t y
c o
n s i d e r a t i o n s
=
Fig. 1. Overview and relations of basic concepts and terminology relating to sustainability reporting.
3 For the sake of consistency, we will from now on use the term “sustainability
reporting” when referring to reporting activities that are related to sustainability-
issues since we assume such disclosure to be part of sustainability reporting ac-
tivities even if they do not cover the entire range of sustainability dimensions in a
single report.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 3
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
4/17
2.2. Selecting research questions, databases, and search terms
Our rst objective was to present an overview of the current
state of research on sustainability reporting. We aimed at
answering the question of what are general trends and relations
and which (in)consistencies in the results can be identied, and we
searched for any major research gaps. After reviewing about one-
third of the literature, we found that a signicant proportion of
studies focused on determinants of sustainability reporting. We
inductively rened our aim to identify what determinants are
examined in the literature and again searched for (in)consistencies
and gaps.
We selected the Web of Knowledge database because of the
extensive coverage of Anglophone peer-reviewed journals from
business, management, and accounting. The database includes all
journals with an impact factor which are (supposedly) the most
important outlets in the eld covering 2474 journals across 50
disciplines (Thomson Reuters, 2012) including business (113 jour-
nals), nance and accounting (85 journals) and management (172
journals). To achieve an even broader coverage of journals we
complemented our search by also using the ScienceDirect database
which covers more than 2500 journals, including 123 related to
business, management and accounting (Elsevier, 2012). In order tocover the research eld exhaustively, an extensive search using the
following keywords was conducted: “Global Reporting Initiative”,
“GRI”, “social report*”, “environment* report*”, “sustainab*
report*”, “CSR report*”, “responsib* report*”, “non-nanc* report*”,
“TBL report*”, “triple* report*”, “integr* report*”. The keywords
were previously identied and discussed by the two researchers.
2.3. Applying practical screening criteria
The time period was set from 1999 to 2011. The starting year
was chosen due to the triggering effect of the introduction of the
GRI guidelines. According to Kolk (2010: 370) “the emergence of
sustainability reports mirrors the development in the
eld of voluntary standard-setting where the multi-stakeholder Global
Reporting Initiative launched its rst sustainability reporting
guidelines in 1999”. Vormedal and Ruud (2009: 209) regardthe GRI
as “the most important driver” inuencing the growth of sustain-
ability reporting. We restricted our search to papers written in
English. We accepted empirical and conceptual publications.
Following the example of other recent literature reviews (e.g.,
Seuring and Müller, 2008; Stechemesser and Guenther, 2012; Kolk
et al., 2013), we excluded book reviews, editorial notes and
comments.
In April 2012,4 the last search was conducted resulting in an
overall body of 265 peer-reviewed articles. Each article was
screened in order to assess whether its content was essentially
relevant with regards to sustainability reporting. To increase reli-
ability of the research, the individual papers were checked by both
researchers. This process resulted in 178 (¼n) papers of essential
relevance included in the following review.
2.4. Applying methodological screening criteria
According to Brewerton and Millward(2001), a literature review
can be methodologically considered as content analysis, which can
be used quantitatively (e.g., to assess descriptive aspects) and
qualitatively (e.g., to evaluate content criteria). Similar, for example,
to Seuring and Müller(2008), we applied the generic process model
by Mayring (2010) containing four steps of a content analysis:
(1) Material collection: The rst step deals with the denition and
delimitation of the material to be collected (see 2.2 and 2.3).
Furthermore, we dene the single article as the unit of analysis.
(2) Descriptive analysis: Assessing formal aspects of the material
serves as the basis of the subsequent theoretical analysis.
Therefore, the bibliographic data of each publication were
recorded. The content of the papers was further assessed with
regard to the descriptive criteria highlighted in Section 3.
(3) Category selection: Structural dimensions are selected, forming
the major topics of the content analysis. We independently
searched the literature for recurring patterns in research. These
patterns were used to inductively identify structural categories
as the major topics of analysis from the material. After
reviewing about one-third of the literature, we found that a
signicant proportion of studies focused on factors deter-
mining the adoption, extent, and (to a lesser extent) quality of
sustainability reporting. Therefore, we inductively rened our
aim to identify what determinants are examined in the litera-
ture. Consequentially, we asked the following questions for the
selection of our structural categories (which were also used tocode the data): Which determinants inuencing the adoption,
extent, and/or quality of sustainability reports are addressed?
What kind of inuence (positive/negative/none) do these de-
terminants exert on the adoption, extent, and/or quality of
sustainability reports? Additionally, we searched for further
topcis, (in)consistencies, and gaps in the literature.
(4) Material evaluation: In the nal step, the whole material is
scrutinized according to the structural categories allowing the
identication of relevant themes and interpretation of ndings.
The underlying approach thus was a hermeneutic and iterative
process including multiple interplays of critically reecting the
data, searching for research patterns, and questioning and
rening the categories for reviewing the literature.
The synthesis of our ndings as nal step of a systematic liter-
ature review process (Fink, 2010) is presented in the following
chapters.
2.5. Limitations and rigor of the research process
The research process and the related qualitative methodology
are not without limitations. According to Saunders et al. (2012)
objectivity can be achieved by avoiding (conscious) bias and sub-
jective selection during the research process. To ensure objectivity,
we adhered to a systematic and structured process as illustrated
above. A limitation can be seen in the selection of databases.
However, relying on two major databases should ensure a broad
range of articles. Conning the search process to Anglophone ar-ticlescan also be regarded as limitation. Nevertheless, English is the
dominant language used in management and accounting research
so that it is unlikely that we missed major ndings due to language
issues. Furthermore, while we argue that a period of 13 years is a
substantial basis from which we draw our conclusions, we
acknowledge that studies have been published before 1999, the
starting year for our review.
Validity can be considered as the extent to which a research
method accurately measures what it intends to measure (Saunders
et al., 2012). We aimed for validity by following the specic
guidelines of Fink (2010) because they have already been used to
conduct literature reviews by various researchers (e.g., Seuring and
Müller, 2008; Stechemesser and Guenther, 2012). Therefore, we
deemed these guidelines suitable and valid for conducting a
4 This date was chosen to include all relevant papers from 2011 that might have
been added with a certain time lag to the databases.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 4
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
5/17
literature review. Furthermore, selecting the Web of Knowledge
database particularly contributes to validity due to its extensive
coverage of high-impact peer-reviewed journals because concen-
trating on peer-reviewed articles is deemed benecial with regards
to validity (Podsakoff et al., 2005).
Reliability is achieved if a research method repeatedly (consis-
tently) generates the same results on other occasions or if other
researchers draw the same conclusions from the raw data
(Saunders et al., 2012). We addressed reliability by including two
researchers in the analysis. While this is admittedly a minimum
requirement, an inclusion of further researchers was deemed un-
realistic due to the time consuming process.
Generalizability describes the extent to which research ndings
can be transferred to settings other than the original research
setting (Saunders et al., 2012). Although we aimed for generaliz-
ability of our ndings by applying an extensive keyword search
using two major databases thus covering the eld exhaustively, we
do not claim that our ndings can be generalized beyond the
reviewed literature body.
3. Descriptive analysis
108 articles were published in journals related to business ethics
or social, environmental, and sustainability topics; 35 by journals
from the accounting and nance discipline; another 35 in journals
from the area of general business and management or in other
specialty journals. Only seven journals published ve or more ar-
ticles (Journal of Business Ethics (28), Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility and Environmental Management (18), Journal of
Cleaner Production (12), Business Strategy and the Environment
(9), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (9), Australian Accounting
Review (5), Environmental Management (5)). Overall, the distri-
bution reects the broad acceptance of sustainability reporting
across journals covering a variety of topics.
3.1. Distribution over time and sustainability dimensions
Fig. 2 illustrates the distribution of publications according to
sustainability dimensions.5 The number of papers increased
continuously over the years. Interestingly, despite the existence of
social and environmental reporting in the 1970/80s (e.g., Fifka,
2012; Kolk, 2010), the growth of sustainability reporting in the
new millennium seems to have invigorated the entire eld of
research. Three signicant increases of publications (in 2003, 2008
and 2011) follow respective updates of the GRI guidelines (G2-
version in 2002, G3-version in 2006 and G3.1-version in early
2011).
Five categories were used to classify the papers. Only twelve
papers (w7%), summarized in the category “social”, explicitly
address reporting on social aspects (i.e., human resources, labor
practices, occupational health and safety, child labor, human rights,community impacts, customer safety). The “environmental” cate-
gory encompasses 50 papers (w28%) that address reporting on
environmental issues (i.e., climate change, greenhouse gas emis-
sions, environmental management practices). Apart from some
uctuations, the number of articles focusing on the environmental
dimension stagnates since 2007. In contrast, the number of papers
addressing double bottom line issues (DBL, i.e., integrating social
and environmental aspects) in sustainability-related reporting has
increasedcontinuously.In sum, we counted 64 DBL oriented papers
(w36%). From a conceptual perspective, however, all papers that
either cover only one dimension of sustainability (environmental or
social) or that study DBL aspects in sustainability-related reporting
technically fall short of a holistic view on sustainability reporting
since they exclude the economic pillar.
The articles that deal with truly integrated sustainability
reporting (including
nancial aspects) were marked as“
TBL ”
(triplebottom line). Taking into account that such integrated reporting is
still in its infancy (KPMG, 2011), it is remarkable that many re-
searchers claim to address reporting from a TBL perspective. A
closer look reveals that most of them actually use the term “TBL ”merely as a “buzzword”. Only four papers (w2%) truly address as-
pects of integrated TBL reporting (Adams and Simnett, 2011;
Azapagic, 2004; Lewis, 2011; Lozano and Huisingh, 2011). Others,
however, focus heavily on environmental and social issues instead
of addressing integrated reporting or inter-linkages between all
three dimensions of sustainability (e.g., Archel et al., 2008;
Husillos-Carqués et al., 2011; Kent and Monem, 2008; Skouloudis
et al., 2009). Consequentially we categorized them as DBL. One
reason for a largely missing TBL orientation in both practice and
research might be that sustainability reporting guidelines such as
the GRI guidelines still tend to address the economic, environ-
mental, and social dimensions of sustainability in isolation from
each other, thus creating compartmentalization and disregarding
synergies and inter-linkages among the dimensions (Lozano and
Huisingh, 2011; Lozano, 2013). The remaining 48 papers (w27%)
discuss further “other” issues such as assurance and stakeholder
engagement in relation to sustainability reporting so that they do
not specically relate to any sustainability dimension.
3.2. Distribution according to research methods
The methodologies applied by the reviewed papers are depicted
in Fig. 3. They can be divided into non-empirical6 and empirical
approaches. Empirical studies consist of document analyses, in-
terviews, surveys, models, and experimental studies.
Non-empirical papers account for approximately 27% of the
relevant literature. From the empirical studies, only document
analyses show a signicant increase over time (w58% of the overall
literature body). The rest of the studies include interview tech-
niques (w6%), surveys (w4%), estimation models (w4%), and
experimental designs (w1%). The dominance of document analyses
implies a neglect of more exploratory and conrmatory
Fig. 2. Distribution of literature over time and sustainability dimensions.
5 The economic dimension was not separately examined since we assumed it to
be covered in research on
nancial reporting.
6 Of the non-empirical papers only one classies as a literature review (Spence
et al. (2010)). All others are conceptual papers. The review articles mentioned in
the introduction were not identied by our search since they were not covered by
our keywords (i.e., not referring to reporting but rather to accounting), in two cases
date from after 2011, or were not included in the databases.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 5
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
6/17
approaches, such as interviews, surveys, and experimental studies
and warrants a closer look. The number of document analyses
increased considerably over the years. This goes along with the rise
in published sustainability reports (GRI, 2011a) providing easy ac-
cess to an abundance of data, which explains the popularity of this
research method from a practical perspective. Fig. 4 provides an
overview of investigated media in document analyses. Theincreasing usage of stand-alone sustainability reports is consistent
with ndings by Kolk (2010) stating that, while in 1999 no report
could be referred to as a sustainability report (but rather as isolated
social or environmental report), it is now the dominant form of
sustainability-related reporting. However, annual reports still
belong to the most widely-analyzed media. This may be due to the
increasing integration of environmental and social aspects into
annual nancial reports since the mid-1990s and the ongoing
establishment of integrated reporting (Daub, 2007). Furthermore,
annual reports can be considered relatively standardized and
institutionalized (Hanson and White, 2003), thus facilitating
research. Websites are increasingly addressed which reects a
growing popularity of this reporting format (Holder-Webb et al.,
2009). Codes of conduct and press releases used as complemen-
tary sources of information in some studies can be considered to be
of minor importance for researchers.
4. Findings on determinants of sustainability reporting 7
Research on the variables affecting the adoption of sustainability
reporting mainly deals with the decision or likelihood to engage in
reporting. Research on the extent of reporting generally addresses
the volume or amount of reporting (i.e., the quantity of disclosed
information based on keyword-, sentence- or page-counts in order
to identify major themes discussed in sustainability-related re-
ports). Research on the determinants of the quality investigates, for
example, the provision of information ranging from rather narra-
tive and descriptive disclosure (i.e., “soft”
information which is noteasily veriable such as strategy claims) to specic, quantiable,
and monetary data (i.e., “hard facts” and objective data such as
quantitative performance indicators) and thus asks for the kind of
information being conveyed.
4.1. Internal determinants of sustainability reporting
The following paragraph illustrates ndings on internal de-
terminants of sustainability reporting. This encompasses issues of
corporate size and nancial performance (4.1.1), social and envi-
ronmental performance (4.1.2), and ownership structure (4.1.3).
4.1.1. Corporate size and nancial performance
Table 1 gives an overview of the most frequently investigateddeterminants in terms of corporate size and nancial performance.
Corporate size (measured by total assets, turnover, sales, number of
employees, or market capitalization) can be considered to have a
positive effect on the adoption and extent of sustainability
reporting, assuming that larger companies cause greater impacts,
become more visible, and therefore face greater stakeholder scru-
tiny and pressure (e.g., Fortanier et al., 2011; Gallo and Jones
Christensen, 2011). Furthermore, small companies might have
higher marginal costs of disclosure (e.g., Haddock, 2005). Empirical
results widely support this thinking. When turning to a company’s
nancial performance, research frequently assumes protability
(measured by market returns, return on assets, or return on equity)
to increase the ability and exibility of a company to bear the costs
of sustainability reporting and/or to cope with the consequences of disclosing potentially damaging information (e.g., Cormier and
Magnan, 2003; Haniffa and Cooke, 2005; Kent and Monem,
2008). Empirical results, however, are rather mixed. A high level
of indebtedness, leverage, or gearing can be assumed to decrease
the ability andexibility of a company to bear the costs of reporting
and/or face the consequences of disclosing potentially damaging
information (e.g., Cormier and Magnan, 2003; Stanny and Ely,
2008). However, Haniffa and Cooke (2005) also argue that sus-
tainability reporting might be used to legitimize corporate activ-
ities toward creditors and shareholders, thus providing incentives
to engage in reporting. Empirical research on this determinant
provides contradictory results.
Four other variables are also used as proxies for nancial per-
formance. However, they received far less academic attention. Re-sults are ambiguous for all.
First, a higher market-to-book value (or Tobin’s q) could imply a
higher level of information asymmetry between a company and its
investors regarding intangible assets, and future growth prospects
may foster reporting activities in order to help investors to predict
future incomes, thereby reducing capital costs. Only Prado-Lorenzo
et al. (2009b) indicate a positive association between a company’s
market-to-book value and the extent of reporting. Others deny a
signicant relation to its adoption (Stanny and Ely, 2008), extent
(Clarkson et al., 2011), and quality (Clarkson et al., 2008, 2011).
Second, high capital intensity could also be considered to
coincide with more extensive sustainability reporting, assuming
companies want to signal the newness of assets and technologies
and related reductions of environmental impacts such as
Fig. 4. Types of media analyzed by document analysis. A single paper may analyze
multiple types of media. Therefore, the numbers might be higher than the number of
empirical papers in each year. Separate reports include social or environmental reports.
Fig. 3. Distribution according to research methods.
7 Some papers specically focus on environmental reporting. Most, however,
analyze a more extensive sustainability reporting. Due to our overarching focus on
sustainability reporting, we will report on both aspects together.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 6
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
7/17
Table 1
Overview of most frequently examined internal determinants of sustainability reporting.a
Determinant Dependent
variable
Authors Conclusion
Corporate size Adoption Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (þ)
Gallo and Jones Christensen, 2011 (þ)
Haddock, 2005 (þ)Haddock and Fraser, 2008 (þ)
Kent and Monem, 2008 (þ)
Stanny and Ely, 2008 (þ)
Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011 (o)
Positive inuence widely acknowledged
Extent Amran and Haniffa, 2011 (þ)
Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ)
Clarkson et al., 2011 (þ)
Cormier et al., 2004 (þ)
Cormier and Magnan, 2003 (þ)
Cormier and Magnan, 2004 (þ)
Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-Guzmán, 2010 (þ)
Fortanier et al., 2011 (þ)
Gallo and Jones Christensen, 2011 (þ)
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 (þ)
Groves et al., 2011 (þ)
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (þ)
Holder-Webb et al., 2009 (þ)
Parsa and Kouhy, 2008 (þ)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009b (þ)
Sotorrío and Sánchez, 2010 (þ)
Tagesson et al., 2009 (þ)
Papaspyropoulos et al., 2010 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a ()
Positive inuence widely acknowledged
Quality Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (þ)
Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ)
Clarkson et al., 2011 (þ)
García-Sánchez, 2008 (þ)
Morhardt Emil, 2010 (þ)
Vormedal and Ruud, 2009 (o)
Positive inuence acknowledged
Financial
performance
Protability Adoption Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o)
Kent and Monem, 2008 (o)
Stanny and Ely, 2008 (o)
No signicant inuence found but
research still scarce
Extent Cormier and Magnan, 2003 (þ)
Cormier and Magnan, 2004 (þ)
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (þ)Sotorrío and Sánchez, 2010 (þ)
Tagesson et al., 2009 (þ)
Clarkson et al., 2008 (o)
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o)
Cormier et al., 2004 (o)
Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-Guzmán, 2010 (o)
García-Sánchez, 2008 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (o)
Fortanier et al., 2011 (mixed)
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 (mixed)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009b ()
Negative correlation seems to be unlikely;
inconclusive results do not allow for a
more pointed conclusion
Quality Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o)
Clarkson et al., 2008 (o)
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (o)
No signicant inuence found but research
still scarce
Indebtedness,
leverage, orgearing
Adoption Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (þ)
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (
)Kent and Monem, 2008 (o)
Stanny and Ely, 2008 (o)
Indifferent results; research still scarce
Extent Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ)
Parsa and Kouhy, 2008 (þ)
Cormier and Magnan, 2003 ()
Cormier and Magnan, 2004 ()
Sotorrío and Sánchez, 2010 ()
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o)
Cormier et al., 2004 (o)
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009b (o)
Indifferent results
Quality Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ)
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 ()
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o)
Indifferent results; research still scarce
a (þ) ¼ positive inuence of determinant on dependent variable. (o) ¼ no signicant inuence, () ¼ negative inuence, (mixed) ¼mixed results on different sub-aspects.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 7
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
8/17
greenhouse gas emissions. Only few empirical papers investigate
this relation providing mixed results. Stanny and Ely (2008) deny a
signicant effect on the adoption of reporting, while Clarkson et al.
(2008) and Clarkson et al. (2011) point to a positive inuence on
the extent and quality of reporting. Fortanier et al. (2011) nd no
signicant effect on the level of sustainability reporting.
Third, reporting may be positively inuenced by nancing ac-
tivities on the capital market. Companies trying to raise capital
may consider sustainability reporting as a means to reduce infor-
mation asymmetry between a company and its investors, thereby
also lowering costs of capital. Cormier and Magnan (2003) and
Clarkson et al. (2008) nd a positive effect on the extent or quality
specically of environmental reporting, whereas Clarkson et al.
(2011) and Cormier and Magnan (2004) indicate no signicant
inuence.
Fourth, Cormier and Magnan (2004) argue that a higher sys-
tematic risk (beta or stock price volatility) as a consequence of an
unstable economic performance decreases the ability of a company
to bear the costs of reporting, and therefore predict a negative ef-
fect on the level of reporting. Cormier et al. (2004), Cormier and
Magnan (2003, 2004) generally conrm this while Clarkson et al.
(2008) and Clarkson et al. (2011) nd no signicant inuence on
the extent and quality of reporting.
4.1.2. Social and environmental performance
Comparably little attention has been paid to the inuence of
social and environmental performance which is usually measured
by the number of nes for environmental transgressions, by actual
pollution discharge data, or by assuming that sustainability per-
formance is mirrored by certain indices such as the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index. On the one hand, companies may want to
signal good performance, implying a positive effect on reporting.
Alternatively, companies with a weaker performance may face
greater stakeholder pressure, thus they may be more actively
engaged in reporting to mitigate legitimacy threats which implies
a negative relation between performance and sustainability
reporting. Research results are again inconsistent. Some studiesnd a positive effect of performance on the adoption (Belal and
Cooper, 2011; Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011) or extent of reporting
activities (Clarkson et al., 2008), whereas others (Clarkson et al.,
2011; Brammer and Pavelin, 2006) indicate that worse perfor-
mance leads to a higher extent of reporting. The latter study by
Brammer and Pavelin (2006), however, simultaneously nds no
signicant effect on the adoption of reporting and Prado-Lorenzo
et al. (2009b) do not nd a signicant effect on the extent . In
sum, research points to a signicant but ambiguous effect of social
and environmental performance on reporting activities. All papers
pay more attention to environmental rather than social perfor-
mance which may be due to dif culties in assessing social
performance.
Finally, the age of a company’s assets is also used as a variable
related to sustainability (especially environmental) performance.
Assuming that stakeholders might link older xed assets (e.g.,
plants and equipment) with a higher environmental pollution
level, a company with young assets has the incentive to report
proactively. Again, empirical evidence offers mixed results. Stanny
and Ely (2008) indicate a negative association between asset age
and the decision to disclose environmental information, whereas
Clarkson et al. (2008) and Cormier and Magnan (2004) nd a
positive relation to the extent of environmental reporting. Three
other studies do not nd a signicant relation (Clarkson et al.,
2011; Cormier et al., 2004; Cormier and Magnan, 2003). Only
two papers examine the effect on the quality of environmental
reporting, revealing similarly inconsistent results (Clarkson et al.,
2008, 2011).
4.1.3. Ownership structure
Some limited research endeavors address several ownership
variables such as a company’s listing on the stock market, gov-
ernment ownership, concentrated or dispersed ownership, and
foreign ownership.
Publicly listed companies can be considered to be more actively
engaged in reporting in order to comply with certain regulations,
adopt good practice by competitors, and/or cope with stakeholder
pressure. Haddock (2005) nds that a company’s listing on the
stock market is associated with a higher adoption of reporting
practices. Furthermore, listed companies disclose a higher level of
sustainability-related information (Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-
Guzmán, 2010; Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Haniffa and Cooke,
2005). Moreover, Amran and Haniffa (2011), Gallo and Jones
Christensen (2011), and Tagesson et al. (2009) indicate that state-
owned companies and/or government shareholding is associated
with a higher extent of sustainability reporting assuming that the
respective organizations are subject to more stringent reporting
requirements and scrutiny, or because they are supposed to set a
good example. Due to the limited number of studies, one cannot
draw denite conclusions on the inuence of a company’s listing on
the stock market or on the inuence of state ownership.
Concentrated ownershipd
often assumed if an investorowns more than 20% of the outstanding voting sharesdcan be
considered to impede sustainability reporting since dominant
shareholders are supposed to already have access to relevant in-
formation. In contrast, a dispersed ownership structure increases
the need to reduce information asymmetry. Brammer and Pavelin
(2006) indicate that the adoption and quality of reporting is
negatively inuenced by a concentrated ownership structure.
Cormier and Magnan (2003), Cormier and Magnan (2004), and
Gamerschlag et al. (2011) nd the same for the extent of reporting
activities. Others, however, nd no signicant correlation (Stanny
and Ely, 2008 for the adoption, and Ertuna and Tukel, 2010;
Tagesson et al., 2009 for the extent) while only one study (Prado-
Lorenzo et al., 2009a) states a positive inuence on the adoption
of the GRI guidelines.Finally, foreign shareholders might have dif culties obtaining
relevant information from alternative information sources, which
induces the need to reduce information asymmetry in case of
foreign ownership. Three studies indicate a positive inuence of
foreign ownership on the level of sustainability reporting (Cormier
and Magnan, 2003, 2004; Haniffa and Cooke, 2005), whereas two
others show no signicant effect (Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-
Guzmán, 2010; Ertuna and Tukel, 2010).
4.2. External determinants of sustainability reporting
Research on the external determinants of sustainability
reporting mainly covers aspects of corporate visibility (4.2.1) or
sector af liation, country-of-origin, and legal requirements (4.2.2).
4.2.1. Corporate visibility
Literature uses media exposure, the supply chain position, and
brand-related aspects as proxies for corporate visibility. When
looking at media exposure (for example measured by the number
of news articles related to a company), companies may start sus-
tainability reporting or increase the depths of their disclosure in
order to mitigate reputational risks of bad press and exploit
possible benets of good press. Literature on this determinant is
summarized in Table 2.
Apart from media exposure, direct interaction with consumers
may lead to high corporate visibility (Groves et al., 2011) sothat the
supply chain position can also be considered a determinant of
sustainability reporting. Business-to-consumer companies are
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 8
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
9/17
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
10/17
reporting. However, we can cautiously note that research tends to
conrm a positive effect of capital intensity, a company’s listing on
the stock market, government ownership, and foreign ownership
on sustainability reporting. On the other hand, a company’s sys-
tematic risk and concentrated ownership structure seem to impede
sustainability reporting. Furthermore, research tends to deny a
signicant effect of a company’s market-to-book value, nancing
activities on the capital market, and age of xed assets. Finally,
researchers provide rather inconsistent and ambiguous ndings
regarding protability and indebtedness.
5. Discussion of theoretical implications and research gaps
In the following, we provide a link to theory by proposing an
outline of a potential theoretical framework (5.1) before presenting
a set of possible future research streams on underrepresented areas
in extant research (5.2).
5.1. Linking results to legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and
institutional theory
At the beginning of the reviewed period, Hooghiemstra (2000)
argued that research on sustainability reporting is characterizedby diverse and inconsistent ndings due to a lack of a compre-
hensive theoretical reference point. More recently, Spence et al.
(2010) found that researchers describe stakeholder theory as the
dominant and most useful theory in explaining sustainability
reporting practice. However, they also explicitly point to the fact
that most studies refer to stakeholders in general, without explicitly
referring to stakeholder theory (or other theories). Our review
conrms this observation. The majority of literature does not refer
to any theory at all, while those studies adoptingdor at least
consideringda theory show indeed a preoccupation with stake-
holder theory (e.g., Belal and Roberts, 2010; Parsa and Kouhy, 2008;
Reynolds and Yuthas, 2008), legitimacy theory (e.g., Criado-
Jiménez et al., 2008; De Villiers and Van Staden, 2006; Haniffa
and Cooke, 2005), and to a certain extent also institutional theory(e.g., Chen and Bouvain, 2009; Fortanier et al., 2011; Rahaman et al.,
2004). Furthermore, these studies mostly refer to isolated theo-
retical reference points instead of more holistically embracing
different theoretical explanations with regard to sustainability
reporting. In the following, we propose a combination of different
theories to explain the ndings discussed above.
According to legitimacy theory, a company needs to have
legitimacy in the sense of a social “license to operate” (Deegan,
2002) to access the necessary resources to successfully conduct
business. Legitimacy theory suggests that no organization has an
inherent right to existbut that any business operation is subject to a
greater acceptance granted by society. Such legitimacy, however, is
potentially threatened if society perceives that a company is not
operating in an acceptable way. Accordingly, legitimation strategiesaim at securing legitimacy as a valuable resource itself (e.g.,
Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Suchman,
1995).
Furthermore, the acceptability of a company in society is
directly linked to stakeholder thinking which argues “that organi-
zations should be managed in the interest of all their constituents,
not only in the interest of shareholders.” (Laplume et al., 2008:
1153) In this sense, stakeholder theory suggests that businesses
have to take into account different perspectives and expectations of
a wide group of constituents having an interest in corporate ac-
tivities (Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2005; Laplume et al., 2008).
Freeman (1984) argues that managers need to recognize shifts in
the environment among internal and external stakeholders. The
recent trend to embrace sustainability issues in society can be
regarded as such a trend and Marshall et al. (2010: 478) even see a
“paradigm shift . that . incorporates a sustainability mandate,
refuting clearly the old thinking of limitless resources, unbounded
growth, and technologically derived solutions.” Other than tradi-
tional nancial reporting, which largely caters to shareholder’s
information needs, sustainability reporting (supposedly) offers
valuable information to a broader audience and thus helps to cater
to their information needs by offering explanations of how a
company answers to the societal call for sustainable business
conduct. It can be assumed that large numbers of (powerful)
stakeholders directly increase the need for these companies to
positively explain their business conduct. In this context, the
disclosure of sustainability-related information can be regarded as
an instrument to shape the perceived legitimacy of the company
(Campbell et al., 2003) which, in turn, builds the bridge to signaling
theory.
Signaling theory suggests that in situations of asymmetric dis-
tribution of information, one party tries to credibly convey infor-
mation about itself to a second party (Spence, 1973; Connelly et al.,
2010). The sustainability performance of a company can be regar-
ded as such asymmetric information since it is dif cult, for
example, for parties outside the company to gain credible infor-
mation on these aspects. Companies might want to reduce thisinformation asymmetry by proactively reporting on their
sustainability-related activities to ensure legitimacy. However,
whether or not the addressee perceives the given information as
plausible and trustworthy greatly inuences the potential effect
such signaling efforts have. In sum, a greater exposure to a large
number of (potentially powerful) stakeholders (and media
coverage) could inuence a company’s need to actively secure its
legitimacy by signaling sustainability efforts in respective reports.
As outlined above, the positive inuence of corporate size on the
adoption, extent, and quality of sustainability reporting is widely
acknowledged in previous research supporting the idea that
especially large companies which are exposed to a diverse set of
stakeholders feel the need to engage in signaling activities such as
sustainability reporting to secure their legitimacy in society. Simi-larly, the positive inuence of media exposure on the adoption and
extent of reporting is also often mentioned (albeit with a much
smaller focus in extant research) which directly points to the need
to engage in signaling. This exposure can also be assumed to be
positively related to corporate size as well as other factors (such as
sector-af liation) so that the cause-effect relationship between
media exposure and corporate size on the one hand and the three
mentioned theoretical anchors on the other hand remains some-
what ambiguous. Nevertheless, all three theories can indeed help
explaining the proliferation of sustainability reporting in the last
decade.
Less clarity, however, exists for aspects of institutional theory
which suggests that corporate activities do not necessarily follow a
business rationale but instead answer to the institutionalized ex-pectations of the environment (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). If this
would be the case for sustainability reporting, the adoption, extent,
and quality of sustainability reporting would gradually align due to
institutional isomorphisms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) instead of
being subject to other external determinants. Research so far,
however, produced mixed results on these aspects (compare, e.g.,
Chen and Bouvain, 2009 with Fortanier et al., 2011).
5.2. Underrepresented streams of researchd possible avenues for
future research
Beyond the focus on determinants of sustainability reporting
there seem to be some major shortcomings when turning to other
topics of potential interest. In the following we will highlight such
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 10
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
11/17
gaps in literature by especially discussing issues of regulation and
governance (5.2.1) as well as reporting quality and stakeholder
perception (5.2.2). These aspects can at the same time be regarded
as a possible roadmap for future research.
As a general remarkwe noticed that there isa strong focus in the
reviewed literature on large and multinational enterprises. Merely
eleven papers address small and medium-sized enterprises and
only three of them (Borga et al., 2009; Fassin, 2008; Parsa and
Kouhy, 2008) do so exclusively. Similarly, only few papers even
partially address sustainability reporting by non-prot organiza-
tions such as public authorities and NGOs (Dumay et al., 2010;
Guthrie and Farneti, 2008; Johansen, 2010; Lozano, 2006; Mussari
and Monfardini, 2010; Rahaman et al., 2004).
5.2.1. Research regarding regulation and governance
As discussed above, the inuence of country-of-origin and of
different regulatory regimes is sparsely examined. Some papers,
however, conceptually explore whether sustainability reporting
may contribute to empowering stakeholders and discuss a (po-
tential) shift of governance to civil society. Hess (2007) and Hess
(2008), for example, argue that voluntary initiatives (such as the
GRI) alone are insuf cient in achieving corporate accountability
because reporting is driven by strategic considerations (also Laufer,2003). Similarly, Dubbink et al. (2008) note an insuf ciency of self-
governance by companies due to a low level of transparency,
incomplete and irrelevant information for stakeholders, and a lack
of comparability of sustainability reports. Consequentially, the au-
thors emphasize the need for a basic legal framework in order to
promote a level of sophistication comparable with mandatory
nancial reporting systems. Hess and Dunfee (2007) suggest a
mandatory sustainability reporting system based on the GRI
guidelines to overcome the issue of strategic disclosure. Levy et al.
(2010), however, criticize the GRI guidelines for being too generic,
lacking detailed quantiable measures, and thus not satisfying the
informational needs of stakeholders. Therefore, they question the
contribution of the GRI for shifting corporate governance to civil
society. Some scholars also raise objections to mandatory sustain-ability reporting in general due to corporate opposition and a lack
of enforcement mechanisms (e.g., Brown et al., 2009b; Levy et al.,
2010). Considering that developing “a more or less smooth sys-
tem” (Dubbink et al., 2008: 402) of mandatory nancial reporting
has taken a considerable amount of time, one should take into
account that regulation on sustainability reporting is still at an early
stage of development (Hess and Dunfee, 2007). An example of
rather progressive regulation can be found in South Africa where
companies at the Johannesburg stock exchange are required to
publish an integrated TBL report, or explain omission (Adams
and Simnett, 2011; Integrated Reporting Committee of South
Africa, 2011). Moreover, the European Commission recently inten-
sied its endeavors to introduce mandatory sustainability-
related disclosure (European Commission, 2013). Such new de-
velopments warrant future research.
When turning to internal aspects of corporate governance, we
identied another research gap. Certain governance structures, for
example audit committees, sustainable development committees
or the presence (or absence) of non-executive or independent di-
rectors on the board might inuence reporting. Such structures
could signal the intention to be transparent, accountable, and
committed to sustainability (e.g., Haniffa and Cooke, 2005; Kent
and Monem, 2008). From our sample, only Ertuna and Tukel
(2010) and Kent and Monem (2008) discuss the mentioned com-
mittees with mixed results, whereas the inuence of non-executivedirectors is examined by Brammer and Pavelin (2006), Ertuna and
Tukel (2010), Haniffa and Cooke (2005), and Prado-Lorenzo et al.
(2009a). This leaves room for further investigations. Finally, only
two papers (Chen and Bouvain, 2009; Fortanier et al., 2011)
investigate whether adherence to global standards such as the GRI,
the UN Global Compact, ISO 14001 or others may increase the
comparability of sustainability reports by overcoming otherwise
existent variations in reporting practice.
Table 4 provides a brief overview of possible future research
streams regarding regulation and governance and posits related
research questions.
5.2.2. Research regarding reporting quality and stakeholder
perceptionFew studies specically examine reporting quality which is a
central issue for providing a true and fair view of a company ’s
Table 4
Overview of research gaps on regulation and governance.
General topic Exemplary research questions Initial research links Remarks and possible anchors
Voluntary vs. mandatory
reporting
Does legal pressure increase comparability
and/or quality of reporting? Can global
standards and soft law overcome the
drawbacks of voluntary disclosure?
E.g., Brown et al., 2009b;
Chen and Bouvain, 2009;
Dubbink et al., 2008;
Fortanier et al., 2011;
Hess, 2007; Hess, 2008;
Hess and Dunfee, 2007;
Laufer, 2003; Levy
et al., 2010
Institutional theory, e.g., normative isomorphism
through standard-setters, mimetic isomorphism
through industry trends, coercive isomorphism;
decoupling theory
Can sustainability reporting better be
explained by institutional pressure
than by legitimacy aspects?
E.g., despite the absence of legitimacy threats or
stakeholder demands, sustainability reporting
might be adopted/improved due to mimetic/
coercive pressuresGovernance issues at
company and country
level
Is the (non)disclosure of sustainability
information inuenced by the self-
interest of managers (or directors,
owners etc.) and/or by internal
governance structures?
E.g., Brammer and
Pavelin, 2006; Ertuna
and Tukel, 2010;
Fonseca, 2010; Haniffa
and Cooke, 2005; Kent
and Monem, 2008;
Prado-Lorenzo
et al., 2009a
Agency theory; discussion of benets and drawbacks
of sustainability reporting for directors, governance
entities etc.; absence of certain governance structures
(e.g., sustainability councils) might imply
sustainability reporting to be decoupled from actual
operations
Are there differences in sustainability
reporting due to differing governance
structures and stakeholder regimes,
e.g., in the US (explicit CSR) vs. Europe
(implicit CSR)?
Explicit/implicit CSR; differences in regulatory regimes
and/or stakeholder governance; potential differences
in reporting due to differences in stakeholder
engagement
Does sustainability reporting (practice
and guidelines) improve stakeholder
accountability and does stakeholder
integration improve credibility and
accountability?
Habermas’ theory of communicative action;
accountability theory
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 11
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
12/17
sustainability performance. Although sustainability-related
reporting is not simply about concealing negative activities and
issues, several scholars note that voluntary disclosure allows
companies to use sustainability reporting as an impression man-
agement tool to improve a company’s reputation (e.g., Castelló and
Lozano, 2011; Coupland, 2006; Hanson and White, 2003;
Hooghiemstra, 2000; Ihlen, 2009; La Cour and Kromann, 2011;
Livesey and Kearins, 2002). In line with this, Holder-Webb et al.
(2009) note that most of the information voluntarily disclosed in
sustainability reports sheds a positive light on the respective com-
pany. Consequentially, many reports are criticized for their self-
laudatory, selective, and strategic character (e.g., Archel et al.,
2008; Criado-Jiménez et al., 2008). According to the GRI guide-
lines, the quality of sustainability reporting and the materiality of a
certain aspect to be reported depend on a balanced reection of
both positive and negative aspects of a company’s performance
(GRI, 2011b). Against this background it is striking that only a single
paper in the literature at hand (Criado-Jiménez et al., 2008) in-
vestigates the disclosure of negative incidents. To ll this gap,
future research could apply content analysis on sustainability re-
ports in order to examine differences in the disclosure of negative
incidents (see recently, Hahn and Lülfs, 2013). Furthermore, re-
searchers might engage in more exploratory and conrmatorymethods such as interviews, surveys, or experimental studies (see
recently, Reimsbach and Hahn, 2013) in order to explore stake-
holder’s perceptions of negative disclosure and its impact on
corporate reputation, legitimacy, share price, reporting quality, and
so on.
To enhance the reporting quality, Laufer (2003) emphasizes the
necessity of independent assurance and appropriate stakeholder
engagement. Both aspects have only recently received increasing
scholarly attention. This is not surprising since assurance on sus-
tainability reporting is a relatively new eld for professionals and
scholars (Smith et al., 2011; KPMG, 2011). A few papers conceptu-
ally or empirically discuss operational dif culties of assurance on
sustainability reporting (Dando and Swift, 2003; O’Dwyer, 2011;
Wallage, 2000). Furthermore, Park and Brorson (2005) examinethe typical process, drivers, and obstacles of such assurance
whereas Simnett et al. (2009), Chen and Bouvain (2009), and Kolk
and Perego (2010) identify factors determining the demand for
assurance. Only two studies analyze the contribution of assurance
to the perception of the respective reports using experimental
designs. Both nd that perceived credibility increases when a
sustainability report is assured and when assurance is provided by
professional accountants (Hodge et al., 2009; Pugrath et al., 2011).
With regard to the quality of assurance (thus indirectly to the
quality of reporting), Smith et al. (2011) conceptually discuss how
managerial inuence on the assurance process might impede
credibility and accountability. Additionally, Fonseca (2010) and
Manetti and Becatti (2009) evaluate assurance statements and note
problems stemming from a low level of stakeholder involvement.
Thomson and Bebbington (2005: 517) explicitly underline that “the
quality of reporting . is intimately linked to the quality of stake-
holder engagement”. It is noticeable that there are only isolated
endeavors addressing this issue. From a conceptual perspective,
Reynolds and Yuthas (2008) conclude that current reporting and
accountability standards enhance transparency but fall short of
engaging stakeholders in discourse, whereas Hess (2008) criticizes
corporations for limiting stakeholder engagement to a mere man-
agement of legitimacy risks. Empirical research also indicates that
companies hardly ever involve stakeholders in decision making onthe content of reports (Manetti, 2011; Perrini, 2006), which might
compromise the materiality and relevance of disclosed informa-
tion. One reason might be that businesses are simply not aware of
how to deal with certain stakeholders (e.g., Onkila, 2011), so
Habisch et al. (2011) identify a gap between literature and practice
about the importance of stakeholder dialogs with regard to sus-
tainability reporting.
Research on stakeholder pressure and legitimacy aspects as
determinants of sustainability reporting is remarkably scarce. In an
early conceptual study, Lewis and Unerman (1999) propose that
varying moral values result in different legitimation strategies and
correspondingly in different reporting patterns in order to fulll
distinctive stakeholder expectations. In line with this, Buhr (2002)
and Husillos-Carqués et al. (2011) infer from interview data thatreporting is initiated following insuf cient communication with
Table 5
Overview of research gaps on reporting quality and stakeholder perception.
General topic Exemplary research questions Initial research links Remarks and possible anchors
Reporting quality Does the quality of sustainability reporting
inuence different aspects of competitive
advantage?
Archel et al., 2008; Clarkson et al., 2011;
Criado-Jiménez et al., 2008; Hahn and Lülfs, 2013;
Laufer, 2003; and other studies mentioned
in Tables 1e3
Resource-based view; socio-political
theories (stakeholder/legitimacy);
voluntary disclosure theory
Does sustainability reporting convey a
true and fair view of corporate
sustainability performance?
Signaling theory; legitimacy theory
Stakeholder engagement
and perception
Does the reporting of negative aspects
inuence stakeholder perception? Do
stakeholders perceive sustainabilityreporting as a proper indicator for a
company’s reliability and predictability?
Criado-Jiménez et al., 2008; Habisch et al.,
2011; Hess, 2008; Manetti, 2011; Onkila,
2011; Perrini, 2006; Reimsbach and Hahn, 2013;Reynolds and Yuthas, 2008; Thomson and
Bebbington, 2005
Signaling theory; legitimacy theory;
resource-based view; stakeholder theory
Does integrated reporting change the
uptake of information by certain
stakeholders (e.g., investors)?
Information processing theory;
proximity compatibility principle
Is sustainability reporting oriented
towards the informational needs of
certain stakeholders (e.g., investors)?
Does stakeholder engagement inuence
reporting patterns (and quality)?
Resource dependence theory;
stakeholder theory
External assurance Does assurance inuence (perceived)
reporting quality?
Laufer, 2003; Smith et al., 2011; Dando and
Swift, 2003; O’Dwyer, 2011; Wallage, 2000;
Parker, 2005; Simnett et al., 2009; Chen and
Bouvain, 2009; Kolk and Perego, 2010;
Hodge et al., 2009; Pugrath et al., 2011;
Fonseca, 2010;
Agency theory; transaction cost
theory; signaling theory
Does assurance inuence information
asymmetries and/or transaction costs?
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 12
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
8/18/2019 Determinants of Sustainability Reporting a Review of Results, Trends,
13/17
stakeholders and a resulting legitimacy crisis or corporate scandals.
Golob and Bartlett (2007) nd in a study covering Australia and
Slovenia that the content of sustainability reporting is inuenced
either by shareholder or stakeholder traditions. Furthermore,
Sinclair-Desgagné and Gozlan (2003) estimate in one of the few
models in our review that stakeholder pressure can inuence the
quality of information (see also the conceptual paper of Utama,
2011). Despite consistently arguing for a positive association be-
tween stakeholder pressure and sustainability reporting, there is a
signicant lack of empirical research. Interestingly, the few existing
studies applied methods which were otherwise rather scarce.
Closely linked to these issues is the question of stakeholder
perception of sustainability reporting. The limited number of
studies (Belal and Roberts, 2010; De Villiers and Van Staden, 2011;
Johansen, 2010) impedes a proper evaluation of the contribution of
sustainability reporting to corporate accountability. When looking
at investors as a specic stakeholder group, Dhaliwal et al. (2011)
argue for the importance of sustainability reporting in reducing
information asymmetry between managers and investors to in-
crease rm value and decrease cost of capital. The few empirical
papers on this aspect consistently conrm this assumption
(Cormier and Magnan, 2007; Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Moneva and
Cuellar, 2009; Schadewitz and Niskala, 2010). Willis (2003)conceptually illustrates the benets of the GRI for socially respon-
sible investments by contributing to comparability between com-
panies and facilitating comprehension of past performance and
future prospects. Van den Brink and Van der Woerd(2004) evaluate
the GRI guidelines on their applicability for benchmarking pur-
poses of rating agencies. In contrast, two other papers discuss
limitations of sustainability reporting towards socially responsible
investments with regard to the already mentioned strategic, se-
lective, and self-laudatory nature of such reports (Fayers, 1999;
Laufer, 2003).
Table 5 provides a brief overview of possible future research
streams regarding reporting quality and stakeholder perception
and posits related research questions.
6. Conclusions
This paper provided a review of literature on contemporary
sustainability reporting from 1999 to 2011 and contributed to
literature by giving a broad overview of the results on the (internal
and external) determinants of sustainability reporting. Already the
descriptive analysis revealed noteworthy aspects. First, current
literature often still seems far from considering truly complete
sustainability reporting on all three dimensions of sustainability.
While we noticed a shift in focus from isolated social or environ-
mental reports to a sustainability focus on the DBL or recently even
on the TBL, the latter is still in its infancy so that there are plenty of
opportunities for future research studying true sustainability
reporting beyond compartmentalization and isolated approaches.Future studies might, for example, look into the content and quality
of integrated reports in order to evaluate whether they contribute
to a more concise and balanced understanding of corporate per-
formance compared to stand-alone sustainability reports. Second,
we noted a strong growth in empirical research (especially docu-
ment analysis) which coincides with the growth in published sus-
tainability reports. Our discussion of ndings, inconsistencies, and
gaps in the 178 articles mainly focused on internal and external
determinants of sustainability reporting and their impact on the
adoption, extent, and quality of reporting since we noted a distinct
research focus on these issues.
Although researchers analyze the effects of a multitude of de-
terminants, only few variables (most notably company’s size,
visibility, and sector-af
liation) receive suf
cient attention and
are associated with consistent results to draw clear conclusions.
Research on most determinants tends to come to inconsistent
ndings. A closer look at the journals reveals that these incon-
sistent ndings do not seem to be inuenced by different man-
agement disciplines but are spread across different journal
segments (i.e., accounting-related journals, sustainability-related
journals, journals from other disciplines, or general management
journals). One can recognize a lack of research on certain de-
terminants such as managerial attitudes and culture. Furthermore,
the quality of sustainability reporting has been largely neglected.
This is not surprising because, other than the extent of reports or
the time of adoption, reporting quality in itself is already dif cult
to evaluate and thus to study. Nevertheless, it is important to turn
to such more sophisticated issues to allow for meaningful con-
clusions, for example, regarding a true and fair view in sustain-
ability reporting. When looking at the quality of sustainability
reporting in connection to another so far scarcely explored area,
namely stakeholder perceptions, research might investigate
whether the trend towards integrated reporting actually satises
stakeholders’ informational needs and contributes to their
empowerment. This would also imply a shift from the dominance
of content analysis of published documents towards more
exploratory and conrmatory methodological approaches such asinterviews, surveys, and experimental studies. Overall, the above
mentioned gaps suggest that there are signicant opportunities
for future researchers to contribute to the eld of sustainability
reporting. This literature review helps to pave the way for up-
coming studies by also discussing potential theoretical anchors
(especially legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and institutional
theory) which are so far often missing or only rudimentary
existing in extant research.8
References
Acerete, B., Llena, F., Moneva, J.M., 2011. Environmental disclosure innancial statements: an analysis of Spanish toll motorway conces-
sionaires. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment16, 377e383.*
Adams, S., Simnett, R., 2011. Integrated reporting: an opportunity for Australia’snot-for-prot sector. Australian Accounting Review 21, 292e301.*
Aerts, W., Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2006. Intra-industry imitation in corporateenvironmental reporting: an international perspective. Journal of Accountingand Public Policy 25, 299e331.*
Alciatore, M., Dee, C.C., Easton, P., 2004. Changes in environmental regulation andreporting: the case of the petroleum industry from 1989 to 1998. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 23, 295e304.*
Amran, A., Haniffa, R., 2011. Evidence in development of sustainability reporting:case of a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment 20,141e156.*
Archel, P., Fernández, M., Larrinage-González, C., 2008. The organizational andoperational boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: a survey. EnvironmentalManagement 41, 106e117.*
Ashforth, B.E., Gibbs, B.W., 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation.Organization Science 1, 177e194.
Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development in-
dicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 12,639e662.*
Belal, A.R., Cooper, S., 2011. The absence of corporate social responsibility reportingin Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22, 654e667.
Belal, A.R., Roberts, R.W., 2010. Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate socialreporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics 97, 311e324.*
Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2003. Environmental disclosure research:review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Research 22, 1e44.
Borga, F., Citterio, A., Noci, G., Pizzurno, E., 2009. Sustainability report in smallenterprises: case studies in Italian furniture companies. Business Strategy andthe Environment 18, 162e176.*
Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., 2006. Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UKcompanies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 33, 1168e1188.*
Brewerton, P., Millward, L., 2001. Organizational Research Methods. A Guide forStudents and Researchers. Sage Publications, London.
8
All 178 papers included in the literature review are marked with a “
*”
.
R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17 13
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, andopportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(13)00465-4/sref12http://refhub.elsevie