Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends,

theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research
Rüdiger Hahn*, Michael Kühnen
Universität Kassel, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Since the end of the 1990s, sustainability reporting has become an increasingly relevant topic in business
Received 21 August 2012 and academia. However, literature is still limited in quantity and no major reviews of the latest de-
Received in revised form velopments have thus far been presented. This paper provides a review of 178 articles dating from 1999
2 July 2013
to 2011 from journals related to business, management, and accounting. Our aim is to identify what
Accepted 3 July 2013
Available online 13 July 2013
determinants of sustainability reporting are examined in the literature and to identify (in)consistencies,
gaps, and opportunities for future research. We specifically illuminate factors influencing the adoption,
the extent, and the quality of reporting. Based on our findings we provide an otherwise often missing link
Keywords:
Sustainability reporting
to theory (especially legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and institutional theory). Finally, possible future
Literature review research themes are discussed by illuminating gaps and underexposed themes in the area of regulation
Determinants and governance as well as reporting quality and stakeholder perception.
Corporate social responsibility reporting Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Triple bottom line
Integrated reporting

1. Introduction corporate information and control processes (Herzig and

A diverse set of stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, sup-
pliers, creditors, advocate groups, public authorities) pursuing
different economic, environmental, and social interests determines
the success of an organization (e.g., Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2005;
Laplume et al., 2008). An important channel through which orga-
nizations1 try to meet these demands is sustainability reporting.
By disclosing sustainability information private companies,
for example, aim to increase transparency, enhance brand value,
reputation and legitimacy, enable benchmarking against competi-
tors, signal competitiveness, motivate employees, and support
Abbreviations: DBL, double bottom line; GRI, Global Reporting Initiative; TBL,
triple bottom line.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ruediger.hahn@uni-kassel.de (R. Hahn).
1
This article reviews research on sustainability reporting in general. Thus, we do
not focus on research that was conducted on private companies only. However,
most research on sustainability reporting to date was carried out in the realm of
private actors (i.e., companies). From now on we use the terms “company” or “firm”
when specifically focusing private actors or when discussing research that was
conducted on companies. In most cases, however, conclusions can be conferred and
both terms can be used interchangeably.
Schaltegger, 2006). Furthermore, sustainability reporting is being
increasingly recognized as an important factor contributing to
corporate sustainability (Lozano and Huisingh, 2011). Thus, it is not
surprising that the topic receives ever growing attention in busi-
ness and academia.
From a historical perspective, the development and focus of
sustainability-related reporting has seen several shifts (Fifka, 2012;
Kolk, 2010). In the 1970s, traditional financial reporting in Western
countries was sometimes complemented by additional social re-
ports. In the 1980s, the focus shifted towards environmental issues
such as emissions and waste generation often replacing prior social
reporting. By the end of the 1990s, reporting research and practice
increasingly began to consider the social and the environmental
dimension simultaneously in a joint report which is often published
alongside traditional financial reports. This trend can be directly
linked to the development of voluntary standard-setting by the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Kolk, 2010; Vormedal and Ruud,
2009). Today the GRI is regarded as “the de facto global standard”
(KPMG, 2011: 20; emphasis in original) for sustainability reporting.
However, in spite of the standardization efforts, significant differ-
ences remain between companies from different institutional en-
vironments with regard to the content and quality of sustainability
reports (Fortanier et al., 2011), implying variations in the global

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
6 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21

academic interest as well. Nevertheless, the literature is still limited 2. Research method
in quantity and no major reviews of the latest developments have
been presented so far. A literature review aims at revealing trends, relations, in-
There have been some recent attempts to examine the field of consistencies, and gaps in the literature in order to organize and
sustainability-related reporting. However, they were mainly con- evaluate existing work in a particular field. Before we turn to the
ducted from a specific focus on accounting (not reporting) issues specific methodological issues we will delineate the basic termi-
(Berthelot et al., 2003; Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Deegan and nology to establish understanding of the concepts involved (2.1).
Soltys, 2007; Lee and Hutchison, 2005; Owen, 2008; Parker, For conducting the review we followed the approach suggested by
2005; Spence et al., 2010). These reviews are limited for three Fink (2010): In the first step, we selected our research questions,
additional reasons: They did not disclose a rigorous method of databases, as well as search terms (2.2). Secondly, we used practical
literature review (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Lee and Hutchison, screening criteria to include or exclude studies from the review
2005; Owen, 2008; Parker, 2005; Spence et al., 2010), they are (2.3). In the third step, we developed and applied methodological
restricted to very few (usually accounting) journals or even articles screening criteria in order to analyze a study’s content (2.4). Finally,
(Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Deegan and Soltys, 2007; Owen, we synthesized and assessed our findings (Sections 3e5).
2008; Parker, 2005) and/or they specifically focused on single is-
sues (Berthelot et al., 2003; Deegan and Soltys, 2007; Lee and
2.1. Basic terminology
Hutchison, 2005). Beyond accounting journals, only two other re-
views could be found. Starting with literature from the 1970s,
In the following, we will set the stage by picturing a framework
Fifka (2013) reviews empirical research on corporate social re-
of basic terminology and concepts (see Fig. 1).
sponsibility (CSR) reporting and examines whether researchers
The initial starting point for any considerations on sustainability
from different regions apply different methodological approaches
or CSR reporting lies in the overarching (normative) concepts of
and therefore come to different results. Fifka (2012) aims at
sustainability and CSR. To provide a distinct reference point we
providing insight into the chronological development and charac-
adopt the latest definition of CSR by the European Commission
teristics of empirical research on sustainability-related reporting in
which regards CSR as “the responsibility of enterprises for their
the last 40 years. In contrast to the latter two, we will specifically
impacts on society . to integrate social, environmental, ethical,
investigate contemporary empirical and conceptual research
human rights and consumer concerns into their business opera-
starting with the year 1999 when the first version of the GRI sus-
tions and core strategy” (European Commission, 2011: 6). Quite
tainability reporting guidelines was published. By confining to
similarly, ISO 26000da worldwide standard for social responsibi-
more recent scientific publications on sustainability reporting
litydcharacterizes social responsibility as “responsibility of an or-
dating from 1999 to 2011, our review is not influenced by historical
ganization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society
changes in the corporate and societal environment. Instead it
and the environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour”
provides an up-to-date portrait of today’s research landscape of
(International Organization for Standardization, 2010: 3) while
sustainability and CSR reporting. To achieve this, a structured
directly referring to the maximization of the contribution to sus-
search for literature was conducted.
tainable development as the “overarching objective for an organi-
We contribute to literature by answering the question “what are
zation” (p. 10).2 These characterizations provide direct links to
general trends and relations in extant literature?” We specifically
sustainability thinking. Following the historical characterization of
distinguish factors which influence the adoption, the extent, and
the World Commission on Environment and Development, which
the quality of reporting because these proved to be the main
puts intra- and intergenerational justice in the middle of thinking,
themes in contemporary studies. We identify the few determinants
Dyllick and Hockerts (2002: 131) define corporate sustainability as
(most notably company’s size, visibility, and sector-affiliation) that
“meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders .,
are covered by a significant amount of studies and show consistent
without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future
results which allow clear conclusions. Furthermore, we contribute
stakeholders as well”. To achieve this goal, companies need “to
by offering detailed insights on (in)consistencies with regard to
maintain their economic, social and environmental capital base”
other determinants such as profitability or indebtedness. Based on
(Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002: 132) which directly refers to
our findings, we provide a detailed link to theory which is often
Elkington’s (1997) triple-bottom-line (TBL) thinking. Lozano and
missing or only rudimentary existing in extant research
Huisingh (2011) present an even more holistic perspective on
(Hooghiemstra, 2000; Spence et al., 2010). Specifically, we discuss
sustainability by explicitly including a fourth time-dimension
the usability and potential contribution of legitimacy, stakeholder,
focusing on “short-, long- and longer-term perspectives.” They
signaling, and institutional theory for future research. Finally, we
propose that there are dynamic and simultaneous interrelations
contribute by introducing a set of potential research themes by
within and between the TBL dimensions, not only at certain points
providing an overview over gaps and underexposed themes in
in time but also over time. In sum, all four dimensionsdincluding
extant research especially on the influence of managerial attitudes
the timedinterrelate at equilibrium. As can be seen from these
and culture, regulation and governance, and in relation to the
characterizations, sustainability and CSR gradually converge (Hahn,
quality of sustainability reporting.
2011) and thus this literature review considers sustainability
The paper is structured as follows: First, the research method-
(reporting) and CSR (reporting) as consistent concepts.
ology as well as the basic terminology is described. Then a
Based on such a normative grounding, the specific corporate
descriptive analysis of extant literature is provided considering the
performance in the area of sustainability and CSR is measured by
distribution of papers over time, the addressed sustainability di-
means of sustainability accounting. Sustainability(-related) ac-
mensions, the publication outlets, and the methodological ap-
counting comprises those information management and
proaches. To illustrate the current state of knowledge we will then
specifically address determinants of sustainability reporting and
discuss the main research findings. We continue by providing an in- 2
Here again, the different focus on “organizations” in general (as by the Inter-
depth link to theory and by portraying significant gaps in current national Organization for Standardization) and on “companies” in particular (as by
research to illustrate opportunities and challenges for future the European Commission) come to the fore. See again Footnote 1 for our
research before concluding the paper. perspective on the interchangeable use of both terms.
 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
Sustainability
reference and
starting point
Normative
• Triple Bottom Line
• Intra- and Intergenerational Justice
• Inter-linkages among the TBL- and
time-dimensions at equilibrium
(Four-Dimensionality)
measurement
performance
Internal
Accounting related to Sustainability (CSR)
Reporting related to Sustainability (CSR)
in the form of
- Integrated reports
information
disclosure
External
- Specialized sustainability, CSR,
corporate citizenship etc. reports
- Isolated environmental or social
reports
Focus of
= literature review
Fig. 1. Overview and relations of basic concepts and terminology relating to sustainability reporting.
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 flexible in experimenting
with disclosing information (Chen and Bouvain, 2009). In light of
this discretionary latitude, corporate reporting practice has led to
an 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 characterize any 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 financial 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,
7
Corporate Social Responsibility
(Corporate Responsibility, Corporate
Citizenship)
covering
Three sustainability dimensions holistic
(financial, ecological, and social at
Extent of sustainability
equilibrium)
considerations
Two sustainability dimensions
(focus on ecological and social; financial
rather neglected)
One sustainability dimension
(ecological or social) isolated
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-financial reporting which can be voluntarily used
by the issuers of the respective reports to achieve certain stan-
dardization in the field. The GRI as a network of experts from
different stakeholder groups thus aims at providing a “globally
shared 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 financial
reporting (e.g., US GAAP, IFRS).
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.
8 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
2.2. Selecting research questions, databases, and search terms
Our first 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 identified, and we
searched for any major research gaps. After reviewing about one-
third of the literature, we found that a significant proportion of
studies focused on determinants of sustainability reporting. We
inductively refined 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 field covering 2474 journals across 50
disciplines (Thomson Reuters, 2012) including business (113 jour-
nals), finance 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 to
cover the research field 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-financ* report*”,
“TBL report*”, “triple* report*”, “integr* report*”. The keywords
were previously identified 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 field of
voluntary standard-setting where the multi-stakeholder Global
Reporting Initiative launched its first sustainability reporting
guidelines in 1999”. Vormedal and Ruud (2009: 209) regard the GRI
as “the most important driver” influencing 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,
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.
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 first step deals with the definition and
delimitation of the material to be collected (see 2.2 and 2.3).
Furthermore, we define 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
significant proportion of studies focused on factors deter-
mining the adoption, extent, and (to a lesser extent) quality of
sustainability reporting. Therefore, we inductively refined 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 to
code the data): Which determinants influencing the adoption,
extent, and/or quality of sustainability reports are addressed?
What kind of influence (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 final step, the whole material is
scrutinized according to the structural categories allowing the
identification of relevant themes and interpretation of findings.
The underlying approach thus was a hermeneutic and iterative
process including multiple interplays of critically reflecting the
data, searching for research patterns, and questioning and
refining the categories for reviewing the literature.
The synthesis of our findings as final 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. Confining the search process to Anglophone ar-
ticles can 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 findings 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 specific
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
 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21 9

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 beneficial 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 findings
can be transferred to settings other than the original research
setting (Saunders et al., 2012). Although we aimed for generaliz- Fig. 2. Distribution of literature over time and sustainability dimensions.

ability of our findings by applying an extensive keyword search

using two major databases thus covering the field exhaustively, we
do not claim that our findings 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 finance discipline; another 35 in journals
from the area of general business and management or in other
specialty journals. Only seven journals published five 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 reflects 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 field of
research. Three significant 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
fluctuations, 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
increased continuously. In sum, we counted 64 DBL oriented papers
(w36%). From a conceptual perspective, however, all papers that
5
The economic dimension was not separately examined since we assumed it to
be covered in research on financial reporting.
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 financial aspects) were marked as “TBL” (triple
bottom 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 specifically 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 significant 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 confirmatory
6
Of the non-empirical papers only one classifies as a literature review (Spence
et al. (2010)). All others are conceptual papers. The review articles mentioned in
the introduction were not identified 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.
10 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
Fig. 3. Distribution according to research methods.
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. The
increasing usage of stand-alone sustainability reports is consistent
with findings 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 financial 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 reflects 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 reporting7
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 not
easily verifiable such as strategy claims) to specific, quantifiable,
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 findings on internal de-
terminants of sustainability reporting. This encompasses issues of
7
Some papers specifically 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.
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.
corporate size and financial performance (4.1.1), social and envi-
ronmental performance (4.1.2), and ownership structure (4.1.3).
4.1.1. Corporate size and financial performance
Table 1 gives an overview of the most frequently investigated
determinants in terms of corporate size and financial 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
financial performance, research frequently assumes profitability
(measured by market returns, return on assets, or return on equity)
to increase the ability and flexibility 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 and flexibility 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 financial 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
significant 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
 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21 11

Table 1
Overview of most frequently examined internal determinants of sustainability reporting.a

Determinant Dependent Authors Conclusion

variable

Corporate size Adoption Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (þ) Positive influence widely acknowledged
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)
Extent Amran and Haniffa, 2011 (þ) Positive influence widely acknowledged
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 ()
Quality Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (þ) Positive influence acknowledged
Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ)
Clarkson et al., 2011 (þ)
García-Sánchez, 2008 (þ)
Morhardt Emil, 2010 (þ)
Vormedal and Ruud, 2009 (o)
Financial Profitability Adoption Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o) No significant influence found but
performance Kent and Monem, 2008 (o) research still scarce
Stanny and Ely, 2008 (o)
Extent Cormier and Magnan, 2003 (þ) Negative correlation seems to be unlikely;
Cormier and Magnan, 2004 (þ) inconclusive results do not allow for a
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (þ) more pointed conclusion
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 ()
Quality Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o) No significant influence found but research
Clarkson et al., 2008 (o) still scarce
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (o)
Indebtedness, Adoption Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (þ) Indifferent results; research still scarce
leverage, or Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 ()
gearing Kent and Monem, 2008 (o)
Stanny and Ely, 2008 (o)
Extent Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ) Indifferent results
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)
Quality Clarkson et al., 2008 (þ) Indifferent results; research still scarce
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 ()
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o)
a
(þ) ¼ positive influence of determinant on dependent variable. (o) ¼ no significant influence, () ¼ negative influence, (mixed) ¼ mixed results on different sub-aspects.
12 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
greenhouse gas emissions. Only few empirical papers investigate
this relation providing mixed results. Stanny and Ely (2008) deny a
significant effect on the adoption of reporting, while Clarkson et al.
(2008) and Clarkson et al. (2011) point to a positive influence on
the extent and quality of reporting. Fortanier et al. (2011) find no
significant effect on the level of sustainability reporting.
Third, reporting may be positively influenced by financing 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) find a positive effect on the extent or quality
specifically of environmental reporting, whereas Clarkson et al.
(2011) and Cormier and Magnan (2004) indicate no significant
influence.
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 confirm this while Clarkson et al.
(2008) and Clarkson et al. (2011) find no significant influence on
the extent and quality of reporting.
4.1.2. Social and environmental performance
Comparably little attention has been paid to the influence of
social and environmental performance which is usually measured
by the number of fines 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 studies
find 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 finds no
significant effect on the adoption of reporting and Prado-Lorenzo
et al. (2009b) do not find a significant effect on the extent. In
sum, research points to a significant 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 difficulties 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 fixed 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) find a
positive relation to the extent of environmental reporting. Three
other studies do not find a significant 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) finds 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 definite conclusions on the influence of a company’s listing on
the stock market or on the influence of state ownership.
Concentrated ownershipdoften assumed if an investor
owns 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 influenced by a concentrated ownership structure.
Cormier and Magnan (2003), Cormier and Magnan (2004), and
Gamerschlag et al. (2011) find the same for the extent of reporting
activities. Others, however, find no significant 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 influence on the adoption
of the GRI guidelines.
Finally, foreign shareholders might have difficulties 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 influence of
foreign ownership on the level of sustainability reporting (Cormier
and Magnan, 2003, 2004; Haniffa and Cooke, 2005), whereas two
others show no significant 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 affiliation, 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 benefits 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) so that 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 59 (2013) 5e21 13

Table 2 Table 3
Overview of research findings on visibility.a Overview of research findings on sector-affiliation.a

Determinant Dependent Authors Conclusion Determinant Dependent Authors Conclusion

variable variable

Media Adoption Haddock and Fraser, 2008 (þ) Positive influence Sector- Adoption Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (U) Rather
exposure Husillos-Carqués et al., 2011 (þ) acknowledged affiliation Gallo and Jones Christensen, indifferent
Kent and Monem, 2008 (þ) 2011 (U) results
Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011 (þ) Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011 (U)
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o) Haddock, 2005 (o)
Extent Cormier et al., 2004 (þ) Positive influence Stanny and Ely, 2008 (o)
Cormier and Magnan, 2003 (þ) widely Mussari and Monfardini, 2010 (c)
Cormier and Magnan, 2004 (þ) acknowledged Extent Amran and Haniffa, 2011 (U) Positive
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 (þ) Clarkson et al., 2008 (U) influence
Sotorrío and Sánchez, 2010 (þ) Clarkson et al., 2011 (U) widely
Clarkson et al., 2008 (o) Cormier and Magnan, 2003 (U) acknowledged
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o) Cormier and Magnan, 2004 (U)
Quality Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o) No significant Fortanier et al., 2011 (U)
Clarkson et al., 2008 (o) influence found Gallo and Jones Christensen,
Clarkson et al., 2011 (o) but research still 2011 (U)
scarce Gamerschlag et al., 2011 (U)
a Holder-Webb et al., 2009 (U)
(þ) ¼ positive influence of determinant on dependent variable, (o) ¼ no sig-
Parsa and Kouhy, 2008 (U)
nificant influence, () ¼ negative influence.
Tagesson et al., 2009 (U)
Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-
Guzmán, 2010 (o)
more likely to engage in reporting activities (Haddock, 2005) while Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (o)
business-to-business companies display lower levels of disclosure Papaspyropoulos et al., 2010 (o)
(Groves et al., 2011). Furthermore, Haddock and Fraser (2008) show Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (o)
that the extent of reporting depends on a company’s closeness to Quality Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (U) Positive
Clarkson et al., 2008 (U) influence
market. In sum, however, research on the value chain position as
Clarkson et al., 2011 (U) acknowledged
determinant is still scarce. García-Sánchez, 2008 (U)
Finally, a few sporadic research endeavors investigate branding Morhardt Emil, 2010 (U)
issues as reporting determinants. Haddock (2005) evaluates the Vormedal and Ruud, 2009 (o)
sameness of brand name and company name, arguing that a a
(U) ¼ significant influence of determinant on dependent variable, (o) ¼ no
company’s profile is more visible to consumers when brand and significant influence, (c) ¼ conceptual paper.
company name are identical. In two studies she confirms a positive
influence on the adoption (Haddock, 2005) and extent of reporting
(Haddock and Fraser, 2008). Nikolaeva and Bicho (2011), however, information (Brown et al., 2009b). Despite this legal pressure, only a
do not find an association between brand visibility and the adop- few studies empirically examined the development of reporting in
tion of sustainability reporting according to the GRI guidelines. response to regulation (mostly concentrating on environmental
disclosure). They usually confirm an increase in the adoption and
4.2.2. Sector affiliation, country-of-origin, and legal requirements extent of (environmental) reporting following tightened regulation
A company’s sector affiliation is the most frequently addressed (e.g., Acerete et al., 2011; Criado-Jiménez et al., 2008 for Spain,
external determinant (see Table 3). Companies from industries with Alciatore et al., 2004 for the US, Bubna-Litic, 2008; Frost, 2007 for
high social and environmental impacts may need to engage in Australia).
sustainability reporting in order to respond to sector-specific
stakeholder pressure (e.g., Parsa and Kouhy, 2008; Sotorrío and 4.3. Interim conclusion on determinants of sustainability reporting
Sánchez, 2010). Furthermore, sustainability disclosure may be
driven by mimetic tendencies within sectors, which would explain The only internal determinant that is consistently found to have
the presence of reporting activities despite the absence of legiti- a positive effect on sustainability reporting is company size.
macy threats or stakeholder pressure (e.g., Aerts et al., 2006; Consequently, media exposure and stakeholder pressure as
Husillos-Carqués et al., 2011). external determinants are also consistently found to have a positive
Apart from industry differences, reporting practices may also influence on sustainability reporting because the size variable can
vary across countries and regions due to different cultural and so- be considered to be linked with corporate visibility. Overall,
cial norms or governmental regulations (Sotorrío and Sánchez, research displays a bias toward variables related to a company’s
2010; Golob and Bartlett, 2007). This determinant is, however, size and economic and financial performance. However, the fre-
subject to only few studies. Some indicate differences across quency of research on economic and financial performance vari-
countries and regions with respect to the adoption (Buhr and ables (particularly with regard to capital intensity, financing
Freedman, 2001) and the extent of sustainability reporting (Chen activities, and systematic risk) is distorted by the personal interest
and Bouvain, 2009; Fortanier et al., 2011; Prado-Lorenzo et al., of certain researchers (Clarkson, Cormier, Magnan and their co-
2009b), whereas Sotorrío and Sánchez (2010) find no significant authors). Moreover, researchers provide rather consistent evi-
country-of-origin effect on the volume of reporting. Only one study dence for a significant influence of a company’s sector affiliation.
from our sample (Vormedal and Ruud, 2009) finds a country-of- Research on other external determinants is again characterized by
origin-influence on reporting quality (for a conceptual perspective inconsistent and ambiguous findings and also by a significant lack
see Utama, 2011). of attention.
In terms of legal requirements, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Similarly, the influence of variables related to social/environ-
for example, require companies to report on environmental im- mental performance has thus far been mostly neglected and the
pacts (Hess and Dunfee, 2007) while French and British regulation few existing studies provide inconsistent results. The lack of
requires certain companies to report on sustainability-related research is especially pronounced in regard to the quality of
14 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
reporting. However, we can cautiously note that research tends to
confirm 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
significant effect of a company’s market-to-book value, financing
activities on the capital market, and age of fixed assets. Finally,
researchers provide rather inconsistent and ambiguous findings
regarding profitability 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 characterized
by diverse and inconsistent findings 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
confirms 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 findings 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 exist but 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 strategies
aim 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 financial 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 difficult, for
example, for parties outside the company to gain credible infor-
mation on these aspects. Companies might want to reduce this
information 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 influences the potential effect
such signaling efforts have. In sum, a greater exposure to a large
number of (potentially powerful) stakeholders (and media
coverage) could influence a company’s need to actively secure its
legitimacy by signaling sustainability efforts in respective reports.
As outlined above, the positive influence 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 influence 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-affiliation) 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 researchdpossible 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 59 (2013) 5e21
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 remark we noticed that there is a 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-profit 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 influence 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 insufficient in achieving corporate accountability
because reporting is driven by strategic considerations (also Laufer,
2003). Similarly, Dubbink et al. (2008) note an insufficiency 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
financial 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 quantifiable 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.,
Table 4
Overview of research gaps on regulation and governance.
General topic Exemplary research questions
Voluntary vs. mandatory Does legal pressure increase comparability
reporting and/or quality of reporting? Can global
standards and soft law overcome the
drawbacks of voluntary disclosure?
Can sustainability reporting better be
explained by institutional pressure
than by legitimacy aspects?
Governance issues at Is the (non)disclosure of sustainability
company and country information influenced by the self-
level interest of managers (or directors,
owners etc.) and/or by internal
governance structures?
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)?
Does sustainability reporting (practice
and guidelines) improve stakeholder
accountability and does stakeholder
integration improve credibility and
accountability?
15
2010). Considering that developing “a more or less smooth sys-
tem” (Dubbink et al., 2008: 402) of mandatory financial 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-
sified 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
identified 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 influence 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 influence of non-executive
directors 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
perception
Few studies specifically examine reporting quality which is a
central issue for providing a true and fair view of a company’s
Initial research links Remarks and possible anchors
E.g., Brown et al., 2009b; Institutional theory, e.g., normative isomorphism
Chen and Bouvain, 2009; through standard-setters, mimetic isomorphism
Dubbink et al., 2008; through industry trends, coercive isomorphism;
Fortanier et al., 2011; decoupling theory
Hess, 2007; Hess, 2008; E.g., despite the absence of legitimacy threats or
Hess and Dunfee, 2007; stakeholder demands, sustainability reporting
Laufer, 2003; Levy might be adopted/improved due to mimetic/
et al., 2010 coercive pressures
E.g., Brammer and Agency theory; discussion of benefits and drawbacks
Pavelin, 2006; Ertuna of sustainability reporting for directors, governance
and Tukel, 2010; entities etc.; absence of certain governance structures
Fonseca, 2010; Haniffa (e.g., sustainability councils) might imply
and Cooke, 2005; Kent sustainability reporting to be decoupled from actual
and Monem, 2008; operations
Prado-Lorenzo Explicit/implicit CSR; differences in regulatory regimes
et al., 2009a and/or stakeholder governance; potential differences
in reporting due to differences in stakeholder
engagement
Habermas’ theory of communicative action;
accountability theory
16 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21

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 reflection 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 fill 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 confirmatory
methods 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 field for professionals and
scholars (Smith et al., 2011; KPMG, 2011). A few papers conceptu-
ally or empirically discuss operational difficulties of assurance on
sustainability reporting (Dando and Swift, 2003; O’Dwyer, 2011;
Wallage, 2000). Furthermore, Park and Brorson (2005) examine
the 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 find that perceived credibility increases when a
sustainability report is assured and when assurance is provided by
professional accountants (Hodge et al., 2009; Pflugrath 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 influence 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 on
the 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 fulfill
distinctive stakeholder expectations. In line with this, Buhr (2002)
and Husillos-Carqués et al. (2011) infer from interview data that
reporting is initiated following insufficient 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
influence different aspects of competitive
advantage?
Does sustainability reporting convey a
true and fair view of corporate
sustainability performance?
Stakeholder engagement Does the reporting of negative aspects
and perception influence stakeholder perception? Do
stakeholders perceive sustainability
reporting as a proper indicator for a
company’s reliability and predictability?
Does integrated reporting change the
uptake of information by certain
stakeholders (e.g., investors)?
Is sustainability reporting oriented
towards the informational needs of
certain stakeholders (e.g., investors)?
Does stakeholder engagement influence
reporting patterns (and quality)?
External assurance Does assurance influence (perceived)
reporting quality?
Does assurance influence information
asymmetries and/or transaction costs?
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
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
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; Pflugrath et al., 2011;
Fonseca, 2010;
Resource-based view; socio-political
theories (stakeholder/legitimacy);
voluntary disclosure theory
Signaling theory; legitimacy theory
Signaling theory; legitimacy theory;
resource-based view; stakeholder theory
Information processing theory;
proximity compatibility principle
Resource dependence theory;
stakeholder theory
Agency theory; transaction cost
theory; signaling theory
 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
stakeholders and a resulting legitimacy crisis or corporate scandals.
Golob and Bartlett (2007) find in a study covering Australia and
Slovenia that the content of sustainability reporting is influenced
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 influence 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
significant 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 specific stakeholder group, Dhaliwal et al. (2011)
argue for the importance of sustainability reporting in reducing
information asymmetry between managers and investors to in-
crease firm value and decrease cost of capital. The few empirical
papers on this aspect consistently confirm this assumption
(Cormier and Magnan, 2007; Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Moneva and
Cuellar, 2009; Schadewitz and Niskala, 2010). Willis (2003)
conceptually illustrates the benefits 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 findings, 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-affiliation) receive sufficient attention and
17
are associated with consistent results to draw clear conclusions.
Research on most determinants tends to come to inconsistent
findings. A closer look at the journals reveals that these incon-
sistent findings do not seem to be influenced 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 difficult
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 satisfies
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 confirmatory methodological approaches such as
interviews, surveys, and experimental studies. Overall, the above
mentioned gaps suggest that there are significant opportunities
for future researchers to contribute to the field 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 in
financial statements: an analysis of Spanish toll motorway conces-
sionaires. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
16, 377e383.*
Adams, S., Simnett, R., 2011. Integrated reporting: an opportunity for Australia’s
not-for-profit sector. Australian Accounting Review 21, 292e301.*
Aerts, W., Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2006. Intra-industry imitation in corporate
environmental reporting: an international perspective. Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy 25, 299e331.*
Alciatore, M., Dee, C.C., Easton, P., 2004. Changes in environmental regulation and
reporting: 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 and
operational boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: a survey. Environmental
Management 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 reporting
in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22, 654e667.
Belal, A.R., Roberts, R.W., 2010. Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate social
reporting 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 small
enterprises: case studies in Italian furniture companies. Business Strategy and
the Environment 18, 162e176.*
Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., 2006. Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK
companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 33, 1168e1188.*
Brewerton, P., Millward, L., 2001. Organizational Research Methods. A Guide for
Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London.
8
All 178 papers included in the literature review are marked with a “*”.
18 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
Brown, H.S., De Jong, M., Levy, D.L., 2009b. Building institutions based on infor-
mation disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of
Cleaner Production 17, 571e580.*
Bubna-Litic, K., 2008. Environmental reporting as a communications tool: a ques-
tion of enforcement? Journal of Environmental Law 20, 69e85.*
Buchholz, R.A., Rosenthal, S.B., 2005. Toward a contemporary conceptual framework
for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58, 137e148.
Buhr, N., 2002. A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13, 17e38.*
Buhr, N., Freedman, M., 2001. Culture, institutional factors and differences in
environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical Per-
spectives on Accounting 12, 293e322.*
Burritt, R.L., Schaltegger, S., 2010. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or
trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23, 829e846.
Campbell, D., Craven, B., Shrives, P., 2003. Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE
sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 16, 558e581.
Castelló, I., Lozano, J.M., 2011. Searching for new forms of legitimacy through
corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics 100, 11e29.*
Chen, S., Bouvain, P., 2009. Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of
corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany.
Journal of Business Ethics 87, 299e317.*
Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D., Vasvari, F.P., 2008. Revisiting the relation
between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an
empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 303e327.*
Clarkson, P.M., Overell, M.B., Chapple, L., 2011. Environmental reporting and its
relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus: A Journal of Ac-
counting Finance and Business Studies 47, 27e60.*
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R., 2010. Signaling theory: a review
and assessment. Journal of Management 37, 39e67.
Cormier, D., Gordon, I.M., Magnan, M., 2004. Corporate environmental disclosure:
contrasting management’s perceptions with reality. Journal of Business Ethics
49, 143e165.*
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2003. Environmental reporting management: a
continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
22, 43e62.*
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2004. The impact of the web on information and
communication modes: the case of corporate environmental disclosure. IJTM
27, 393e416.*
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2007. The revisited contribution of environmental
reporting to investors’ valuation of a firm’s earnings: an international
perspective. Ecological Economics 62, 613e626.*
Coupland, C., 2006. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in web-based
reports: currency in the banking sector? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17,
865e881.*
Criado-Jiménez, I., Fernández-Chulián, M., Husillos-Carqués, F.J., Larrinage-
González, C., 2008. Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in
financial statements: the case of Spain (2001e2003). Journal of Business Ethics
79, 245e262.*
Da Silva Monteiro, S.M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., 2010. Determinants of environmental
disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17, 185e204.*
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15,
1e13.
Dando, N., Swift, T., 2003. Transparency and assurance: minding the credibility gap.
Journal of Business Ethics 44, 195e200.*
Daub, C.-H., 2007. Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative
methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 75e85.*
De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C.J., 2006. Can less environmental disclosure have a
legitimising effect? Evidence from Africa. Accounting, Organizations and Soci-
ety 31, 763e781.*
De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C.J., 2011. Shareholder requirements for compulsory
environmental information in annual reports and on websites. Australian Ac-
counting Review 21, 317e326.*
Deegan, C., 2002. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures e a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 15, 282e311.
Deegan, C., Soltys, S., 2007. Social accounting research: an Australasian perspective.
Accounting Forum 31, 73e89.
Dhaliwal, D.S., Li, O.Z., Tsang, A., Yang, Y.G., 2011. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure
and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility
reporting. The Accounting Review 86, 59e100.*
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review 48, 147e160.
Dowling, J., Pfeffer, J., 1975. Organizational legitimacy: social values and organiza-
tional behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review 18, 122e136.
Dubbink, W., Graafland, J., Van Liedekerke, L., 2008. CSR, transparency and the role
of intermediate organisations. Journal of Business Ethics 82, 391e406.*
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2010. GRI sustainability reporting guidelines
for public and third sector organizations. Public Management Review 12,
531e548.*
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 130e141.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Capstone, Oxford.
Elsevier, 2012. ScienceDirect. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ (accessed 05.07.12.).
Ertuna, B., Tukel, A., 2010. Traditional versus international influences: CSR disclo-
sures in Turkey. EJIM 4, 273.*
European Commission, 2011. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011e14 for Corporate Social
Responsibility, Brussels.
European Commission, 2013. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council Amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as
Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large
Companies and Groups. COM(2013) 207 Final. European Commission,
Strasbourg.
Fassin, Y., 2008. SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Business Ethics: A Euro-
pean Review 17, 364e378.*
Fayers, C., 1999. Environment and investment: the role of personal investment
choice in creating sustainability. Sustainable Development 7, 64e76.*
Fifka, M.S., 2012. The development and state of research on social and environ-
mental reporting in global comparison. Journal of Betriebswirtsch 62, 45e84.
Fifka, M.S., 2013. Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in
comparative perspective: a review of the empirical literature and a meta-
analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment 22, 1e35.
Fink, A., 2010. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper,
third ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Fonseca, A., 2010. How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A
critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the interna-
tional council on mining and metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 17, 355e370.*
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., Pinkse, J., 2011. Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and
global CSR standards. Management International Review 51, 665e696.*
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,
Boston.
Frost, G.R., 2007. The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guide-
lines: Australian evidence. Abacus 43, 190e216.*
Gallo, P.J., Jones Christensen, L., 2011. Firm size matters: an empirical investigation
of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors.
Business & Society 50, 315e349.*
Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K., Verbeeten, F., 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR
disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science 5,
233e262.*
García-Sánchez, I.M., 2008. Corporate social reporting: segmentation and charac-
terization of Spanish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management 15, 187e198.*
Golob, U., Bartlett, J.L., 2007. Communicating about corporate social responsibility: a
comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations
Review 33, 1e9.*
GRI, 2011a. A New Phase: the Growth of a New Phase: the Growth of Sustainability
Reporting. Amsterdam.
GRI, 2011b. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Version 3.1. Amsterdam.
Groves, C., Frater, L., Lee, R., Stokes, E., 2011. Is there room at the bottom for CSR?
Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics 101, 525e552.*
Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2008. GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector
organizations. Public Money & Management 28, 361e366.*
Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., Schwartz, C., 2011. Different talks with different
folks: a comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S.
Journal of Business Ethics 100, 381e404.*
Haddock, J., 2005. Consumer influence on internet-based corporate communication of
environmental activities: the UK food sector. British Food Journal 107, 792e805.*
Haddock, J., Fraser, I., 2008. Assessing corporate environmental reporting motiva-
tions: differences between “close-to-market” and “business-to-business”
companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
15, 140e155.*
Hahn, R., 2011. Integrating corporate responsibility and sustainable development: a
normative-conceptual approach to holistic management thinking. Journal of
Global Responsibility 2, 8e22.
Hahn, R., Lülfs, R., 2013. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability
reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of
Business Ethics (in press).
Haniffa, R., Cooke, T.E., 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate
social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24, 391e430.
Hanson, D., White, R., 2003. Rhetorics of environmental routinisation in one
Australian company’s annual reports. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38,
477e493.*
Herzig, C., Schaltegger, S., 2006. Corporate sustainability reporting: an overview. In:
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and
Reporting. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 301e324.
Hess, D., 2007. Social reporting and new governance regulation: the prospects of
achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics
Quarterly 17, 453e476.*
Hess, D., 2008. The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance
regulation: disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly 18,
447e482.*
Hess, D., Dunfee, T.W., 2007. The Kasky-Nike threat to corporate social reporting:
implementing a standard of optimal truthful disclosure as a solution. Business
Ethics Quarterly 17, 5e32.*
 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., Stewart, J., 2009. Assurance of sustainability reports:
impact on report users’ confidence and perceptions of information credibility.
Australian Accounting Review 19, 178e194.*
Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J.R., Nath, L., Wood, D., 2009. The supply of corporate
social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics 84,
497e527.*
Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management:
new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal
of Business Ethics 27, 55e68.*
Husillos-Carqués, F.J., Gonzalez, C.L., Alvarez Gil, M.J., 2011. The emergence of triple
bottom line reporting in Spain. Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Con-
tabilidad: Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting 40, 195e219.*
Ihlen, O., 2009. Business and climate change: the climate response of the world’s 30
largest corporations. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and
Culture 3, 244e262.*
Integrated Reporting Committee of South Africa, 2011. Framework for Integrated
Reporting and the Integrated Report: Discussion Paper, n/a.
International Organization for Standardization, 2010. ISO 26000-Guidance on Social
Responsibility, Geneva.
Johansen, T.R., 2010. Employees, non-financial reports and institutional arrangements:
a study of accounts in the workplace. European Accounting Review 19, 97e130.*
Kent, P., Monem, R., 2008. What drives TBL reporting: good governance or threat to
legitimacy? Australian Accounting Review 18, 297e309.*
Kolk, A., 2010. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World
Business 45, 367e374.*
Kolk, A., Perego, P., 2010. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance
statements: an international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment 19, 147e215.*
Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., Rufin, C., 2013. Reviewing a Decade of Research on the
“Base/Bottom of the Pyramid” (BOP) Concept. Business & Society.
KPMG, 2011. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting
2011, n.p.
La Cour, A., Kromann, J., 2011. Euphemisms and hypocrisy in corporate philan-
thropy. Business Ethics: A European Review 20, 267e279.*
Lamberton, G., 2005. Sustainability accountingda brief history and conceptual
framework. Accounting Forum 29, 7e26.
Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K., Litz, R.A., 2008. Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory
that moves us. Journal of Management 34, 1152e1189.
Laufer, W.S., 2003. Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of
Business Ethics 43, 253e261.*
Lee, T.M., Hutchison, P.D., 2005. The decision to disclose environmental informa-
tion: a research review and agenda. Advances in Accounting 21, 83e111.
Levy, D.L., Brown, H.S., De Jong, M., 2010. The contested politics of corporate
governance: the case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business & Society 49,
88e115.*
Lewis, L., Unerman, J., 1999. Ethical relativism: a reason for differences in corporate
social reporting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 10, 521e547.*
Lewis, S., 2011. Lessons on corporate “sustainability” disclosure from deepwater
horizon. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health
Policy 21, 197e214.*
Livesey, S.M., Kearins, K., 2002. Transparent and caring corporations? A study of
sustainability reports by the body shop and royal Dutch/Shell. Organization &
Environment 15, 233e258.*
Lozano, R., 2006. A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities
(GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 963e972.*
Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of
European companies. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 99e107.*
Manetti, G., 2011. The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability report-
ing: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 18, 110e122.*
Manetti, G., Becatti, L., 2009. Assurance services for sustainability reports: standards
and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics 87, 289e298.*
Marshall, S., Vaiman, V., Napier, N., Taylor, S., Halsberger, A., Andersen, T., 2010. The
end of a “Period”: sustainability and the questioning attitude. Academy of
Management Learning & Education 9, 477e487.
Mayring, P., 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, eleventh
ed. Beltz, Weinheim, Germany.
Meyer, J.M., Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340e363.
Moneva, J.M., Cuellar, B., 2009. The value relevance of financial and non-financial
environmental reporting. Environmental and Resource Economics 44, 441e456.*
Morhardt Emil, J., 2010. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting
on the internet. Business Strategy and the Environment 19, 436e452.*
Mussari, R., Monfardini, P., 2010. Practices of social reporting in public sector and
non-profit organizations. Public Management Review 12, 487e492.*
Nikolaeva, R., Bicho, M., 2011. The role of institutional and reputational factors in
the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39, 136e157.*
O’Dwyer, B., 2011. The case of sustainability assurance: constructing a new assur-
ance service. Contemporary Accounting Research 28, 1230e1266.*
Onkila, T., 2011. Multiple forms of stakeholder interaction in environmental man-
agement: business arguments regarding differences in stakeholder relation-
ships. Business Strategy and the Environment 20, 379e393.*
19
Owen, D., 2008. Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current
state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21, 240e267.
Papaspyropoulos, K.G., Blioumis, V., Christodoulou, A.S., 2010. Environmental
reporting in Greece: the Athens stock exchange. African Journal of Business
Management 4, 2693e2704.*
Parker, L.D., 2005. Social and environmental accountability research: a view from
the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 18,
842e860.
Park, J., Brorson, T., 2005. Experiences of and views on third-party assurance of
corporate environmental and sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 13, 1095e1106.*
Parsa, S., Kouhy, R., 2008. Social reporting by companies listed on the alternative
investment market. Journal of Business Ethics 79, 345e360.*
Perrini, F., 2006. The practitioner’s perspective on non-financial reporting. Califor-
nia Management Review 48, 73e103.*
Pflugrath, G., Roebuck, P.J., Simnett, R., 2011. Impact of assurance and assurer’s
professional affiliation on financial analysts’ assessment of credibility of
corporate social responsibility information. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory 30, 239e254.*
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G., Podsakoff, N.P., 2005. The influence
of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal
26, 473e488.
Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., García-Sánchez, I.M., 2009a. Stakeholder
engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership
structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-
ment 16, 94e107.*
Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I., García-
Sánchez, I.M., 2009b. Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas
emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision 47, 1133e1157.*
Rahaman, A.S., Lawrence, S., Roper, J., 2004. Social and environmental reporting at
the VRA: Institutionalised legitimacy or legitimation crisis? Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 15, 35e56.*
Reimsbach, D., Hahn, R., 2013. The effects of negative incidents in sustainability
reporting on investors’ judgments e an experimental study of third-party
versus self-disclosure in the realm of sustainable development. Business
Strategy and the Environment, Early View. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1816.
Reynolds, M.A., Yuthas, K., 2008. Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility
reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 78, 47e64.*
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2012. Research Methods for Business Students,
sixth ed. Pearson, New York.
Schadewitz, H., Niskala, M., 2010. Communication via responsibility reporting and
its effect on firm value in Finland. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-
ronmental Management 17, 96e106.*
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., 2006. Sustainability accounting and
reporting: development, linkages and reflection. An introduction. In:
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and
Reporting. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1e33.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
1699e1710.
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F., 2009. Assurance on sustainability reports:
an international comparison. The Accounting Review 84, 937e967.*
Sinclair-Desgagné, B., Gozlan, E., 2003. A theory of environmental risk disclosure.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 377e393.*
Smith, J., Haniffa, R., Fairbrass, J., 2011. A conceptual framework for investigating
“capture” in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business
Ethics 99, 425e439.*
Sotorrío, L.L., Sánchez, J.L.F., 2010. Corporate social reporting for different audiences:
the case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 17, 272e283.*
Spence, C., Husillos-Carqués, F.J., Correa-Ruiz, C., 2010. Cargo cult science and the
death of politics: a critical review of social and environmental accounting
research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21, 76e89.*
Spence, M., 1973. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87,
355e374.
Stanny, E., Ely, K., 2008. Corporate environmental disclosures about the effects of
climate change. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-
ment 15, 338e348.*
Stechemesser, K., Guenther, E., 2012. Carbon accounting: a systematic literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production 36, 17e38.
Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of Management Review 20, 571e610.
Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., Collin, S.-O., 2009. What explains the extent
and content of social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites:
a study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed corpora-
tions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16,
352e364.*
Thomson Reuters, 2012. Social Sciences Citation Index: Master Journal List. http://
ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC¼SS (accessed
05.07.12.).
Thomson, I., Bebbington, J., 2005. Social and environmental reporting in the UK: A
pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16, 507e533.*
Utama, S., 2011. An evaluation of support infrastructures for corporate re-
sponsibility reporting in Indonesia. Asian Bus Manage 10, 405e424.*
20 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
Van den Brink, T.W.M., Van der Woerd, F., 2004. Industry specific sustainability
benchmarks: an ECSF pilot bridging corporate sustainability with social
responsible investments. Journal of Business Ethics 55, 187e203.*
Vormedal, I., Ruud, A., 2009. Sustainability reporting in Norway: an assessment of
performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment 18, 207e222.*
Wallage, P., 2000. Assurance on sustainability reporting: an auditor’s view. Audit-
ing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19, 53e65.*
Willis, C.A.A., 2003. The role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s sustainability
reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal of Business
Ethics 43, 233e237.*
Further reading
Arena, M., Azzone, G., 2010. Process based approach to select key sustainability
indicators for steel companies. Iron and Steel 37, 437e444.*
Arimura, T.H., Hibiki, A., Katayama, H., 2008. Is a voluntary approach an effective
environmental policy instrument? Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 55, 281e295.*
Brown, H.S., De Jong, M., Lessidrenska, T., 2009. The rise of the Global Reporting
Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics 18,
182e200.*
Brown, J., Parry, T., Moon, J., 2009. Corporate responsibility reporting in UK con-
struction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sus-
tainability 162, 193e205.*
Castilla Polo, F., Gallardo Vázquez, D., 2008. Social information within the intel-
lectual capital report. Journal of International Management 14, 353e363.*
Chalmers, J., Archer, G., 2011. Development of a sustainability reporting scheme for
biofuels: a UK case study. Energy Policy 39, 5682e5689.*
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility: standard
adoption and practices in Italian companies. International Journal of Production
Economics 113, 88e106.*
Cooper, S.M., Owen, D.L., 2007. Corporate social reporting and stakeholder
accountability: the missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society 32,
649e667.*
Cowan, D.M., Dopart, P., Ferracini, T., Sahmel, J., Merryman, K., Gaffney, S.,
Paustenbach, D.J., 2010. A cross-sectional analysis of reported corporate envi-
ronmental sustainability practices. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
58, 524e538.*
Cowper-Smith, A., De Grosbois, D., 2011. The adoption of corporate social re-
sponsibility practices in the airline industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19,
59e77.*
Crespy, C.T., Miller, V.V., 2011. Sustainability reporting: a comparative study of NGOs
and MNCs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18,
275e284.*
Davidson, K.M., 2011. Reporting systems for sustainability: what are they
measuring? Social Indicators Research 100, 351e365.*
Dingwerth, K., Eichinger, M., 2010. Tamed transparency: how information disclo-
sure under the Global Reporting Initiative fails to empower. Global Environ-
mental Politics 10, 74e96.*
Dong, S., Burritt, R.L., 2010. Cross-sectional benchmarking of social and environ-
mental reporting practice in the Australian oil and gas industry. Sustainable
Development 18, 108e118.*
Dragomir, V.D., Anghel Ilcu, E.R., 2011. Comparative perspectives on environmental
accounting elements in France and the United Kingdom. African Journal of
Business Management 5, 11265e11282.*
Dragomir, V.D., Anghel Ilcu, E.R., 2011. Social responsibility practices regarding fa-
cilities granted to employees and consumer protection in selected European
companies. Amfiteatru Economic 13, 86e103.*
Erkko, S., Melanen, M., Mickwitz, P., 2005. Eco-efficiency in the Finnish EMAS re-
ports: a buzz word? Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 799e813.*
Etzion, D., Ferraro, F., 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sus-
tainability reporting. Organization Science 21, 1092e1107.*
Fleischman, R.K., Schuele, K., 2006. Green accounting: a primer. Journal of Ac-
counting Education 24, 35e66.*
Gallego-Alvarez, I., 2008. Analysis of social information as a measure of the ethical
behavior of Spanish firms. Management Decision 46, 580e599.*
Gao, Y., 2011. CSR in an emerging country: a content analysis of CSR reports of listed
companies. Baltic Journal of Management 6, 263e291.*
Gibson, K., O’Donovan, G., 2007. Corporate governance and environmental report-
ing: an Australian study. Corporate Governance 15, 944e956.*
Gond, J.-P., Herrbach, O., 2006. Social reporting as an organisational learning tool? A
theoretical framework. Journal of Business Ethics 65, 359e371.*
Haque, S., Deegan, C., 2010. Corporate climate change-related governance practices
and related disclosures: evidence from Australia. Australian Accounting Review
20, 317e333.*
Hartman, L.P., Rubin, R.S., Dhanda, K.K., 2007. The communication of corporate
social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational corpo-
rations. Journal of Business Ethics 74, 373e389.*
Hou, J., Reber, B.H., 2011. Dimensions of disclosures: corporate social responsibility
(CSR) reporting by media companies. Public Relations Review 37, 166e168.*
Hu, A.H., Chen, L.-T., Hsu, C.-W., Ao, J.-G., 2011. An evaluation framework for scoring
corporate sustainability reports in Taiwan. Environmental Engineering Science
28, 843e858.*
Islam, M.A., McPhail, K., 2011. Regulating for corporate human rights abuses: the
emergence of corporate reporting on the ILO’s human rights standards within
the global garment manufacturing and retail industry. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting 22, 790e810.*
Johnson, B.R., Connolly, E., Carter, T.S., 2011. Corporate social responsibility: the role
of fortune 100 companies in domestic and international natural disasters.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18, 352e369.*
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., 2007. Sustainable development and the UK’s major
retailers. Geography 92, 41e47.*
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., Eastwood, I., 2005. Corporate social responsibility: a
case study of the UK’s leading food retailers. British Food Journal 107, 423e435.*
Jose, A., Lee, S.-M., 2007. Environmental reporting of global corporations: a content
analysis based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 72, 307e321.*
Kaenzig, J., Friot, D., Saadé, M., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2011. Using life cycle ap-
proaches to enhance the value of corporate environmental disclosures. Business
Strategy and the Environment 20, 38e54.*
Kawashita, F., Taniyama, Y., Hwi, S.Y., Fujisaki, T., Kameda, T., Mori, K., 2005. Occu-
pational safety and health aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
Japanese companies listed on the Tokyo stock exchange (TSE) first section.
Journal of Occupational Health 47, 533e539.*
Knox, S., Maklan, S., French, P., 2005. Corporate social responsibility: exploring
stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE com-
panies. Journal of Business Ethics 61, 7e28.*
Kolk, A., Lenfant, F., 2010. MNC reporting on CSR and conflict in central Africa.
Journal of Business Ethics 93, 241e255.*
Kolk, A., Pinkse, J., 2010. The integration of corporate governance in corporate social
responsibility disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 17, 15e26.*
Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Martinuzzi, A., 2006. Empirical findings on
businessesociety relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics 63, 89e105.*
Krajnc, D., Glavi c, P., 2005. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable
development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 43, 189e208.*
Kristensen, K., Westlund, A., 2003. Valid and reliable measurements for sustainable
non-financial reporting. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14,
161e170.*
Lenzen, M., Dey, C.J., Murray, S.A., 2004. Historical accountability and cumulative
impacts: the treatment of time in corporate sustainability reporting. Ecological
Economics 51, 237e250.*
Lungu, C.I., Caraiani, C., Dascalu, C., 2009. Reporting green information from envi-
ronmental management perspective. Journal of Environmental Protection and
Ecology 10, 524e539.*
Lungu, C.I., Caraiani, C., Dascalu, C., 2011. Research on corporate social responsibility
reporting. Amfiteatru Economic 13, 117e131.*
Maali, B., Casson, P., Napier, C., 2006. Social reporting by Islamic banks. Abacus 42,
266e289.*
Magness, V., 2003. Economic values and corporate financial statements. Environ-
mental Management 32, 1e11.*
Mak, B.L.M., Chan, W.W.H., Wong, K., Zheng, C., 2007. Comparative studies of
standalone environmental reports: European and Asian airlines. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12, 45e52.*
Marcuccio, M., Steccolini, I., 2005. Social and environmental reporting in local au-
thorities. Public Management Review 7, 155e176.*
McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J., Van Engelen, J., 2008. Sustainability quotients and the
social footprint. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-
ment 15, 223e234.*
Meyskens, M., Paul, K., 2010. The evolution of corporate social reporting practices in
Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics 91, 211e227.*
Mikkilä, M., Toppinen, A., 2008. Corporate responsibility reporting by large pulp
and paper companies. Forest Policy and Economics 10, 500e506.*
Mio, C., 2010. Corporate social reporting in Italian multi-utility companies: an
empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-
agement 17, 247e271.*
Mitchell, C.G., Hill, T., 2009. Corporate social and environmental reporting and the
impact of internal environmental policy in South Africa. Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility and Environmental Management 16, 48e60.*
Moneva, J.M., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., 2007. The corporate stakeholder
commitment and social and financial performance. Industrial Management &
Data Systems 107, 84e102.*
Morhardt Emil, J., 2001. Scoring corporate environmental reports for comprehensive-
ness: a comparison of three systems. Environmental Management 27, 881e892.*
Mudd, G.M., 2008. Sustainability reporting and water resources: a preliminary
assessment of embodied water and sustainable mining. Mine Water Environ 27,
136e144.*
O’Connor, M., Spangenberg, J.H., 2008. A methodology for CSR reporting: assuring a
representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and
performance issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1399e1415.*
Perez, F., Sanchez, L.E., 2009. Assessing the evolution of sustainability reporting in
the mining sector. Environmental Management 43, 949e961.*
Pollach, I., Scharl, A., Weichselbraun, A., 2009. Web content mining for comparing
corporate and third-party online reporting: a case study on solid waste man-
agement. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, 137e148.*
Quaak, L., Aalbers, T., Goedee, J., 2007. Transparency of corporate social re-
sponsibility in Dutch breweries. Journal of Business Ethics 76, 293e308.*
Raiborn, C.A., Butler, J.B., Massoud, M.F., 2011. Environmental reporting: toward
enhanced information quality. Business Horizons 54, 425e433.*
 R. Hahn, M. Kühnen / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 5e21
Rodriguez Bolivar, M.P., 2009. Evaluating corporate environmental reporting on the
internet: the utility and resource industries in Spain. Business & Society 48,
179e205.*
Roth, A., Kaberger, T., 2002. Making transport systems sustainable. Journal of
Cleaner Production 10, 361e371.*
Sardinha, I.D., Reijnders, L., Antunes, P., 2011. Using corporate social responsibility
benchmarking framework to identify and assess corporate social responsibility
trends of real estate companies owning and developing shopping centres.
Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1486e1493.*
Scholtens, B., 2011. Corporate social responsibility in the international insurance
industry. Sustainable Development 19, 143e156.*
Shauki, E., 2011. Perceptions on corporate social responsibility: a study in capturing
public confidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-
agement 18, 200e208.*
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F., 2009. Development of an evaluation
methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on
reporting. Environmental Management 44, 298e311.*
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F., 2010. Assessing non-financial re-
ports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from
Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 426e438.*
Spence, C., 2009. Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment 18, 254e265.*
Steurer, R., Konrad, A., 2009. Business-society relations in Central-Eastern and
Western Europe: how those who lead in sustainability reporting bridge the gap
21
in corporate (social) responsibility. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25,
23e36.*
Stray, S., 2008. Environmental reporting: the U.K. water and energy industries: a
research note. Journal of Business Ethics 80, 697e710.*
Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y., Lehman, G., 2007. Environmental reporting in a developing
country: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia. Journal of
Cleaner Production 15, 895e901.*
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Kirchoff, J.F.N., 2010. Corporate social responsibility reports:
a thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 46, 19e44.*
Tiong, P.N.C., Anantharaman, R.N., 2011. An examination of the sustainability dis-
closures of ANZ, NAB and WESTPAC. Jassa: The Finisia Journal of Applied
Finance, 12e16.*
Tsang, S., Welford, R., Brown, M., 2009. Reporting on community investment.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16, 123e136.*
Vuontisjärvi, T., 2006. Corporate social reporting in the European context and hu-
man resource disclosures: an analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business
Ethics 69, 331e354.*
Wenhao, C., Kaufman, K., 2011. Corporate social responsibility in Fortune maga-
zine’s top 50 companies: state of action and salient trends. African Journal of
Business Management 5, 11636e11651.*
Wiedmann, T.O., Lenzen, M., Barrett, J.R., 2009. Companies on the scale: comparing
and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 13, 361e383.*