Bus Strat Env - 2012 - Stubbs - Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability Reports

Business Strategy and the Environment
Bus. Strat. Env. 22, 456–470 (2013)

Published online 12 November 2012 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.1756
Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability

Reports?
Wendy Stubbs,1* Colin Higgins2 and Markus Milne3
1
School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Victoria Australia
2
School of Management and Information Systems, Victoria University, Australia
3
Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, College of Business and Economics,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
Sustainability reporting emerged on the corporate scene nearly 30 years ago as a key mechanism
through which business organisations would manage a transition to a new business landscape
dominated by greater concern and consciousness about sustainability. While it has become
something of a feature on the corporate agenda in some parts of the world, the majority of
business organisations do not undertake this type of reporting. This paper explores why 23
of Australia’s top 200 companies do not undertake sustainability reporting. The study is
situated in the context of a considerable literature that promised numerous benefits to be
derived from this type of reporting. The paper uncovers various social and organisational
factors that raise some new questions about legitimacy theory, corporate accountability
and the spread and uptake of this organisational practice. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 24 April 2012; revised 26 July 2012; accepted 14 August 2012

Keywords: sustainability reporting; social and environmental reporting; non-reporters; Australia
Introduction
T
HIRTY YEARS AGO SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING (SR)1 WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL, FRINGE ACTIVITY THAT STOOD ON THE CUSP
of widespread adoption. While only a few firms reported in the early 1990s, all indications pointed to it
spreading widely and rapidly amongst the business community (Elkington, 1997; UNEP/SustainAbility,
2004; Zadek, 1998).
As part of early scholarly inquiries into SR, some canvassed management views about the barriers and disincentives
to its uptake (O’Dwyer, 2002; Solomon and Lewis, 2002; SustainAbility, 1998) – suggesting that if these could be
identified and overcome, accountability-based and transformational SR would ensue (Adams, 2002; Noci, 2000).
*Correspondence to: Dr Wendy Stubbs, Senior Lecturer, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Wellington Road,
Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia. E-mail: wendy.stubbs@monash.edu
1
In this paper ‘sustainability reporting’ refers to all types of extended reporting on economic, social and environmental reporting – particularly
stand-alone environment reports, corporate social responsibility reports, health, safety and environment reports, triple bottom line reports and
sustainable development reports. While acknowledging there are sometimes differences between these, this study’s interest lies in the practice
of social/environmental reporting as it has evolved, regardless of the particular title used by business (or in academia) at any particular point
in time. It is also necessary to be clear that this view does not endorse references to corporate sustainability reporting as being indicative of cor-
porate sustainability performance (see Gray and Milne 2002, 2004).
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
10990836, 2013, 7, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.1756 by Hochschule Pforzheim, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sustainability Reporting and Non-Reporters 457
Despite considerable academic and practitioner activity, it appears today that the majority of business firms still
do not report in this way. While KPMG (2011) have found that 95% of the world’s largest multinational companies
(the G250) undertake SR, only an estimated 2000 or so of 60,000 multinational companies that operate around
the world do so (Milne and Gray, 2007). Further, while SR seems to have become a feature of the corporate agenda
in the UK, Australia, Japan and some parts of Europe, the majority of even large business organisations in these
countries do not report. In Australia, for example, while 77% of the largest (top 100) firms provide more than a
basic level of reporting, only 47% of the top 200 do so (Australian Council of Super Investors, 2011).2 A 2008
study of Australian businesses found that only 126 firms, spread across a considerable range of industries, issue
standalone sustainability reports (Higgins et al., 2011). Similar observations have been reported in the UK among
the largest 350 publicly listed companies (Martin and Hadley, 2008).
This paper discusses the social and organisational factors that help to explain why many companies still do not
undertake SR. The research is situated in the context of considerable developments in understanding the internal,
organisational and external factors that encourage reporting, the benefits of doing so and firms’ various motivations
for reporting. The paper explores whether the barriers and disincentives identified in the early stages of this movement
(in, for example, Solomon and Lewis, 2002) are still current, or whether new and different barriers now exist. The
aim of the exploratory study is to open up new areas for theoretical inquiry. Are there new questions that need to be
asked about legitimacy theory? What new work needs to take place around business accountability for social and
environmental issues? Is SR (still?) a useful mechanism for stakeholder management? Are there new theoretical
explanations for SR if it is largely the preserve of just a few business organisations? The study is particularly interested
in why and how non-reporting firms, subject to similar legitimacy challenges and stakeholder pressures as reporting
firms, do not report because they can provide valuable insights in to the existing theoretical base.
The next section provides a brief overview of the main perspectives about SR and focuses specifically on how
SR was expected to spread widely and rapidly. It touches on the early insights about the barriers and disincentives
associated with extended disclosure and SR. The paper then outlines the research approach, including how the
sample of 23 non-reporting firms was identified, followed by the results of the interviews and a discussion section.
The conclusion draws out some implications for public policy, stakeholder involvement and business interest
groups. Directions for future research are also highlighted – particularly some theoretical avenues that should
be explored given the findings of this analysis.
Sustainability Reporting
Early studies into SR asserted confidence in a changing business landscape, and were couched in considerable
optimism about a new business case for sustainability (Andriof and McIntosh, 2001; Elkington, 1997; Wheeler
and Elkington, 2001). Management action towards sustainability (including SR) would, in the near future, not
only be necessary in order for businesses to survive and to compete (Atkinson, 2000; Dechant et al., 1994;
Porter and van der Linde, 1995) but also offered a number of additional and attractive outcomes (Andersen, 2003;
Gray et al., 1996; Marshall and Brown, 2003; Zadek, 1998). While reservations about SR, as one emerging
management practice, were acknowledged and understood (Cerin, 2002; Noci, 2000), it was expected that these
would gradually give way in light of evolving standardisation about reporting, escalating stakeholder scrutiny,
more widespread environmental legislation (including about reporting and disclosure) and a groundswell of
community interest in business, the environment and social justice (Andersen, 2003; Berman et al., 1999; Burritt,
2002; Mitchell and Hill, 2009; Noci, 2000).
From the mid-1990s SR appeared to be on the cusp of widespread business adoption (Marshall and Brown, 2003;
Stray and Ballantine, 2000). Early adopters had apparently propelled it in to a ‘key channel for companies to communicate
2
ACSI (2011) classify the ASX200 into five levels of sustainability reporting: no reporting (15%), basic (38%), developing (25%), enhanced (5.5%)
and best practice (16.5%). Basic is defined as ‘The company reports on sustainability to a limited extent. For example, the company might provide
some basic information and statistics on health and safety. There is no significant consideration of sustainability risks’. Developing is defined as
‘The company shows an increased level of reporting and disclosure of the company’s actual performance against sustainability risks. This might
be through a dedicated section on the website, a dedicated section of the annual report, or a standalone sustainability report’ (ACSI, 2011, p.8).
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 22, 456–470 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
458 W. Stubbs et al.
their environmental performance and [it had also] become an effective tool to demonstrate company-wide
integrated environmental management systems, corporate responsibility and the implementation of industry
voluntary codes of conduct’ (UNEP/SustainAbility, 2004, p. 1). Environmental issues were described by Cerin
(2002) at the time of his study of 1999 corporate reports as having moved in to the mainstream of society. Wheeler
and Elkington (2001) asserted that it was now critical for business organisations to find new and active ways to
engage with their stakeholders. Much of the early work about SR was also couched in an extended notion of
organisational accountability (Gray et al., 1996). In light of the changing business landscape, business organisations both
should and would disclose more information about their impacts as a matter of principle. Extended accountability would
contribute to social and organisational change – more information about an organisation’s impact will provide a different
picture of the business–society relationship (than provided by financial disclosure) and it will raise management
consciousness and motivate stakeholders to force change on an organisation. The case for SR seemed assured,
and its rapid and widespread adoption almost certain. The new business landscape in most business studies about
sustainability and SR was taken as given (see, for example, von Geibler et al., 2006).
The academic and practitioner interest in SR largely focused on understanding the characteristics and
motivations of those firms that were reporting (Cormier and Gordon, 2001; Cormier and Magnan, 1999; Marshall
and Brown, 2003; C. Roberts, 1991). Reporting firms, it was demonstrated, experienced a variety of intersecting
internal and external factors, and shared various organisational characteristics. Typically the external factors
emphasise stakeholder pressure (Deegan, 2002; Hedberg and von Malmborg, 2003; Patten, 1992) but they
also mirror closely aspects of the (assumed) changing business environment (including growing consumer
appetite for sustainable firms – see Borkowski et al., 2010). Internal factors and organisational characteristics
emphasise size, progressive management, the presence of organisational structures (e.g. sustainability/environment
committees, management positions) that facilitate disclosure (Adams, 2002). In terms of organisational motivations
for reporting, a mix of market, social, political and accountability motives have been found (Marshall and Brown,
2003; Solomon and Lewis, 2002).
Early studies of (mostly extended annual report disclosure) pointed to legitimacy as the most likely motivation for
this evolving practice. SR was mostly undertaken by large organisations in prominent industries – and these firms
reported more content and more often than any others (Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Ernst and Ernst, 1978; Guthrie
and Parker, 1990). Some studies revealed that the disclosure patterns of these firms were tied to accidents and other
events that generated threats to legitimacy (Lindblom, 1993) and stakeholder pressure (Roberts, 1992) including
those that might be exacerbated by new media (Brown and Deegan, 1998). The implication from this work, and
which has largely endured, is that firms subject to stakeholder and media pressure will initiate SR in order to shape
the expectations of the community. Of interest, however, is that many firms experience such pressures, but they do
not all undertake SR.
In light of the extant literature (see overviews in Gray et al., 1995; Mathews, 1997, 2002; Milne, 2007; Parker,
2005, 2011), it is easy to be forgiven for thinking that SR has evolved into a widespread organisational practice.
According to Wheeler and Elkington (2001) it ‘has moved from a fringe activity pioneered by socially conscious
but non-mainstream companies into a credible and serious practice embraced by a number of major corporations’
(p. 5). In less than a decade, UNEP/SustainAbility (2004) revealed a 600% increase in SR across the world (totalling
about 600 reporters in 2003) with as many as 1300 reporting electronically. Likewise Kolk (2003) observed that 50%
of the 1998 Fortune Global 250 companies were undertaking some form of SR in 2001. Reporting amongst
these firms grew to 79% in 2008 and to 95% in 2011 (KPMG, 2011). The focus on large, listed companies,
however, disguises the patchy nature of this type of reporting in most industries in most countries of the world
and amongst those outside the largest (usually top 100) firms (Martin and Hadley, 2008).
While concerns have consistently been raised about the quality (Morhardt et al., 2002; Vormedal and Ruud, 2009)
and management capture of SR (Gray and Bebbington, 2000; Higgins and Walker, 2012 in press; O’Dwyer, 2003;
Owen et al., 2000), or indeed if it has anything to do with contributing to and articulating just and environmentally
sustainable outcomes (Gray and Milne, 2002, 2004; Milne et al., 2008, 2009), there has been little focus on why firms
do not report (although see Martin and Hadley, 2008). Early on, when SR was still burgeoning, various commentators
reported reluctance amongst business to extend their disclosure regimes. Typically, firms doubted there was sufficient
public or stakeholder interest in their social and environmental performance, there was confusion about what to
report and how, firms lacked the information systems to put together the information easily, and managers tended
DOI: 10.1002/bse
to disbelieve the business case or they considered that the costs outweighed any likely benefits (Andersson and
Bateman, 2000; Gray et al., 1993; Noci, 2000; Solomon and Lewis, 2002; World Industry Council for the Environment,
1994). Some recent studies have revealed similar management doubts (Martin and Hadley, 2008; Mitchell and Hill,
2009). These reservations were expected to give way in light of shifts in public policy, greater standardisation of reporting
standards and methodologies, and widespread community concern about business and sustainability.
But, what has happened since? In the nearly 30 years since firms first started reporting, and in the context of
considerable growth in reporting standards, consultancies, award schemes, public policy shifts and new pressures
in supply chains the majority of large business organisations still do not undertake SR. Is the reluctance to report
the same as it was 20–30 years ago? Have other approaches to managing social and environmental issues eclipsed
the attractiveness of reporting (such as the internet; see Adams and Frost, 2006; Isenmann and Lenz, 2002;
Morhardt, 2010)? Were early studies prematurely optimistic, or based on quite a different economic, political
and social context (see, for example, Solomon and Lewis, 2002 who discuss the influence of British prime minister
Tony Blair in the late 1990s and early 2000s on reporting in the UK). Perhaps integrated reporting (Jensen and Berg,
2011) will fare better. If the theories concerning the influences on, and motivations for, SR are still current, in what
ways do they need to be adjusted to explain non-reporting firms?
Research Approach and Methods

This exploratory study (Blaikie, 2000) sought to uncover the social and organisational factors relating to non-reporting
– a phenomenon for which relatively little is known – using in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Data were gathered
from large publicly listed Australian organizations (ASX200)3 that are not issuing sustainability reports. While almost
all of the ASX200 companies disclose some social/environmental information, not all firms detail their sustainability
performance in terms of metrics/measurements, include targets, disclose this information in publicly available report
(s) and describe how they undertook their reporting process. It was firms that did not report according to these criteria
that were included in the sample.
To identify non-reporters, the websites of ASX200 listed firms were searched for non-reporting firms. According to
KPMG’s (2011) global research, mining (84%), energy (69–71%) and financial services (61%) sectors have relatively
high penetration of SR. The other sectors are less than 60%. The most recent KPMG (2008) Australian data on
the 100 largest companies (N100, which equates to the ASX100) verifies that energy (included in oil and gas
and utilities sectors where 80% report) and mining (80% report) have high rates of SR while financial services are
low at 24%. However, at the time of this study 66% of the retail banks listed in the ASX200 issued sustainability
reports and 100% of the ASX100 retail banks did so.
Eighty-nine of the ASX200 companies were classified as non-reporters and were invited to participate in the
research study. Twenty-three accepted and a face-to-face or telephone interview was organised. All names of
companies and participants were kept confidential. The interviews took 45–60 minutes. The sectoral breakdown
of the participants was: 43% mining (materials), 13% energy, 9% financials, 4% consumer staples and 30% others
(see Table 1). Fourteen (61%) were in industries with high rates of reporting (mining, energy and banking). The
sample does not vary significantly from the invited population in terms of size (market capitalisation); however,
the sample is weighted towards mining companies who are located in Western Australia, while the rest of the
companies in the sample are located in Sydney or Melbourne on the east coast of Australia.
While the aim was to speak to the sustainability manager, or person responsible for disclosing environmental and
social information, it was sometimes difficult to identify an appropriate person. As Table 1 indicates, there is a wide
cross-section of personnel who agreed to be interviewed. In some cases it was a senior person who had a good
understanding of the overall business strategies and operations; in other cases it was someone responsible for
‘sustainability’ or the ‘environment’. The data are limited by the fact that only one person from each firm was
interviewed, as well as by the perspectives of the people who chose to participate in the interviews, where they
‘sat’ within the organisation and how broad/narrow their organisational perspective and role was. The authors
3
The ASX200 is the top 200 firms listed on the Australian Securities Exchange by market capitalisation. The sector breakdown of the ASX200 is
approximately 40% financials and property, 24% materials, 8% consumer staples, 8% industrials, 6% energy and 14% others.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Code Industry Role
C1 Consumer staples Sustainability manager

E1 Energy Investor relations manager
E2 Energy Corporate sustainability officer
E3 Mining/energy General manager, sustainable development
FS1 Financial services Head of environment, social and governance
FS2 Financial services (retail bank) Head of environment and sustainability
G1 Gaming Company secretary; General manager – group corporate affairs
L1 Logistics General manager – health, safety, environment and quality
M1 Mining Manager, environment and community
M2 Mining Principal environmental advisor; Senior environmental advisor
M3 Mining Environment manager
M4 Mining Chairman
M5 Mining Company secretary
M6 Mining General manager – safety, health, environment and community
M7 Mining Vice president – business development
M8 Mining Company secretary/Chief financial officer
M9 Mining Manager, environment and community
M10 Mining Group environmental manager
R1 Retail Environment manager
R2 Retail Procurement manager
R3 Retail Sustainability manager
T1 Transport Manager, strategy and marketing
T2 Transport National manager environmental sustainability planning
Table 1. List of research participants
acknowledge these are limitations of the exploratory research study and future studies can test the findings of this
study in other contexts to establish their range of application.
The interviews sought to probe legitimacy, stakeholder pressure and institutional drivers, and how these firms
experience or resist pressures emanating from these perspectives (see Table 2). The interviews were taped and
transcribed and, using NVIVO, the transcriptions were coded to draw out key themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Grounded theory techniques (Neuman, 2003; Patton, 2002) were used to code and analyse the data and draw out
themes. A provisional ‘start list’ of codes was drawn from the sustainability literature to assist the coding process
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). In particular, Bansal and Roth’s (2000) research into the motivations for organisations
to adopt sustainability programs was used to help identify codes to understand why some companies do not undertake
SR. The codes were grouped together and classified under new themes as patterns emerged within the data
(second-level codes). Five themes emerged from analysing and grouping the second-level codes. The authors
acknowledge that these themes were derived from the limited sample of interview data and additional, or different,
themes may well emerge from interviews with a different set of stakeholders. Further research studies using a larger
sample of stakeholders would verify and/or enhance these themes.
1. Background on interviewee.
2. Probe the most significant social and environmental issues facing their industry and company.
3. Probe whether pressures are applied to disclose social and environmental information (stakeholder, institutional) and how they
are responding.
4. Probe the organisation’s view on sustainability reporting.
5. Since there is no legal requirement for social and environmental reporting, probe why they think some of their peers do it.
6. Probe whether they think sustainability reporting is a growing trend. Why/why not? Probe how this might impact their organisation.
Table 2. Interview guide
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Results and Discussion

Despite classifying the participating firms as ‘non-reporters’, all engage in some communication with stakeholders
about social/environmental issues. For more than half, the communication is a requirement of licence or permit
conditions (and this disclosure is not always easily accessible to the general public) or it involves narrative informa-
tion about a ‘commitment to sustainability’ in the annual report and/or the company website. In some cases, it
involves direct contact with interested parties. In almost all of the firms interviewed, there was an awareness of
the social and environmental issues associated with their operations, and an understanding of community concern.
In one or two cases, the manager interviewed recognised and understood the issues associated with business and
sustainable development, and that this presented challenges to the way in which the firm operated and required
some action to address these.
Most argued that the absence of a dedicated sustainability report did not mean an absence of social and environmental
responsibility or a lack of concern about sustainability. Communication about corporate responsibility and sustainability
can take a variety of forms. One mining company suggested, for example, that:
We’ve done things like mine tours . . . we’ve had fairly large responses, just people curious to get on
a mine site and see what goes on . . . To not communicate what you’re doing or not give them an
opportunity to have a look, by failing to do that, in my experience, if there’s misinformation out there,
it just gets an opportunity to perpetuate itself. One of the ways of combating that is to get people to site
and explain to them well this is what we do, this is how it’s done, this is how we monitor it, this is how
we report it and it gives them an opportunity to actually see it live rather than relying on potentially
misinformation.(M10)
The consumer staples firm outlined a range of other reporting and disclosure practices that they’re involved in.
For instance:
I’m all for open transparency, which is why we report through CDP [carbon disclosure program], the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index and CDP Water for the first time this year. So our information is out there in the public
domain but we don’t go to the trouble and expense of putting it in a fancy brochure. . .. We already put all of
our action plans through Australian Packaging Covenant and Responsible Round Table on Sustainable Palm
Oil. . .. I don’t think that reporting is the be all and end all. I think it’s more important that businesses are taking
action. I think if they’re sharing it with their supply chain, if they’re sharing it with their customers, I think
they’re doing a good job. (C1)
‘Actions rather than words’ is a recurring theme throughout the interviews. However, ‘words’ do matter. According to
early studies (see above) and much of the practitioner-oriented literature (Group 100, 2003; KPMG and Group 100, 2008)
dedicated, targeted SR is important, and it can deliver important benefits. What is more, it has been found to drive much
reporting activity amongst a wide range of firms.
Five themes capture the factors that explain why a firm does not produce a comprehensive and publicly available
report of their social/environmental performance: (1) a lack of external stakeholder pressure; (2) no perceived benefits
and thus little motivation to report; (3) SR is a nice-to-do, not must-do; (4) a compliance culture towards sustainability;
and (5) the organisational structure and/or culture does not encourage reporting.
Lack of External Stakeholder Pressure

Despite all of the participants being in industries for which there is some broad social and/or environmental
concern, none of the companies experience stakeholder pressure to issue a sustainability report. Additionally,
none suggested that any extension to prevailing accountability norms or requirements was necessary.
The only exception was some new interest in social and environmental performance by institutional
investors. One retailer (R3), for example, had been approached by ‘a few investment groups’ about ethical
DOI: 10.1002/bse
sourcing risk but the interest of this group was by no means widespread or extensive. Some participants
acknowledged that there may be some value in SR ‘if investors ask for it’, in order to assess risk. One energy
participant suggested:
It’s important if an institutional investor is going to look at [company] for the first time, that they can get
something like this and actually, you know, you’ve plotted out all the risks and how you’re mitigating those
risks and identified why you’re better than your competitor. (E1)
Concern from institutional investors, while an acknowledgement of organisational accountability to owners

(or potential owners), does not represent any substantial shift in organisational thinking from traditional business
concerns. The non-reporting firms are, for the most part, characterised by a traditional view of business and
society that privileges shareholder interests. Indeed, several participants made it fairly clear that management
priorities lie with shareholders. Also pertinent, although it did not surface in the interviews, is that in seeking
environmental risk information, institutional investors are often able to bypass the need for public documents
through private meetings with management (Solomon et al., 2011).
From a legitimacy perspective, the non-reporting firms only consider legitimacy in terms of traditional
business outcomes – business growth, profitability and return on investment – and this model of business and
society is not challenged by any alternative demands on business practice. Legitimacy challenges associated
with social and environmental performance appear to be of concern only to the larger organisations (ASX100).
According to the non-reporters, larger and more visible companies would have more stakeholder pressure
(consumers, local communities, NGOs, investment community, shareholders) to produce sustainability reports.
One miner explained:
Look, I think as you become a bigger company and you have, I guess, a bigger impact on community and your
brand is more recognisable, then you get more targeted . . . or you are open more to be targeted by these pressure
groups; that then holds you are more accountable for your sustainability commitments. (M7)
By this reckoning, the drivers for SR differ for the very largest firms. According to the interview participants,
larger firms would see SR contributing to reputation, corporate image and credibility – some want to be listed
on the sustainability indices such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) – as well as competitive
pressures/advantage. Non-reporters also suggest that the bigger companies have more (dedicated) resources to
produce SRs, as one miner described:
I would suspect that the companies that are producing those documents are in the larger echelon of a
company in terms of size and profitability; so I suspect that they’ve got the capacity. . . I would suspect that
a lot of those operations would potentially have individual groups specifically tasked with sustainability and
sustainability reporting; whereas a lot of the smaller players, that sort of technical input is being resourced
by existing staff under existing environmental teams. (M10)
Size appears to matter regarding the reputational and community issues associated with impacts of mining and
energy companies, thus warranting the dedication of resources to manage the ‘licence to operate’. Clearly, however,
irrespective of size and visibility, like organisations would generate similar types of impacts. Mining companies, for
example, whether large or small, use toxic substances, generate toxic by-products and mine non-renewable
resources (Campbell and Mollica, 2009). A number of the non-reporters feel they can ‘fly under the radar’. They
do not recognise responsibility or accountability beyond that which is necessary for compliance.
The non-reporting companies generally express a very weak and instrumental view of sustainability and corporate
responsibility (Milne et al., 2009). This view emphasises ‘business as usual’ and assumes that the environment is
something to be ‘managed’ rather than a fundamental business imperative (Gladwin, 1993). While this view is not
a lot different from those that do produce sustainability reports (Milne et al., 2009; Spence, 2007) many non-reporters
do not recognise the business outcomes that can accrue from even a very basic commitment to sustainability. For
many, there is little awareness of the broader business and sustainability agenda.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
From the perspective of institutional theory, organisational activities are subject to the conditioning effects of the
fields4 in which firms participate. Of particular significance within fields are industry associations, which are seen as
key actors in developing and spreading new organisational norms and activities (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). For
many non-reporters, there is little engagement with industry associations, sustainability networks and other interest
groups where sustainability is discussed and debated. The non-reporting mining companies do not think they are
‘big enough’ to participate in the industry associations, they do not see any benefit in being involved, or sustainability
is either not discussed or is not perceived as being much value.
The institutional theory literature is, however, ambiguous about the specific nature and level of the fields that
influence organisational activity (Dillard et al., 2004). Fields are not always industry-based. Sometimes fields form
around issues that are important to organisations in a variety of industries (Hoffman, 1999). In the case of SR,
there may be an issues-based field forming around sustainability, of which reporting is a legitimised practice
(Higgins and Larrinaga, 2012). Three firms – mining, retailer and energy – currently do not report but are in
the process of developing their first report. The managers in each of these firms have become recent participants
in sustainability interest groups that span different industries. Their decision to start reporting reflects the
discourse developed and put forward by these sustainability interest groups. For example, an energy company
representative suggested:
Well fundamentally I think that report will just enable us, moving forward, to really get a visual on what
sustainability, what it encompasses. It’s probably got a lot of value internally, more internally than externally,
so people within the company can say oh maybe . . . there’s certain aspects of our operations for example that
we may need to improve on. Without doing it, sort of working through that GRI process of, you know you
tend to just focus on what you know you’re doing and then when you’re forced to look at things that you
probably wouldn’t have thought of otherwise, you go ‘actually. . .’ (E2)
Regardless of whether firms are influenced by industry or issue-based fields (most likely a combination of both),
SR is either only in the very early stages of institutionalisation or the field(s) exert relatively weak institutional
pressure. Two of the non-reporters – the consumer staples firm and a financial services firm – are active participants
in their industry associations and within sustainability interest groups. They also both understand and are aware of SR
arguments, and both play leadership roles in these organisations. Despite this, they have consciously and purposely
rejected SR as appropriate for their organisations.
While the type of pressure exerted within fields by institutions differs, organisations will typically copy the
practices of their peers when new activities reach a degree of acceptability or are seen to deliver important
business benefits. Where early adopters of new activities tend to desire a leadership position (Bansal, 2005), later
adopters copy only when activities reach a stage of taken-for-grantedness (or become institutionalised). Most of
the non-reporters in this sample do not want to be seen as leaders in sustainability, but four did suggest they
would increase their reporting if they saw their competitors doing more. There is thus some evidence of isomorphic
pressure (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) in relation to reporting amongst competitors.
No Perceived Benefits
While the interviewees generally acknowledged that sustainability could provide a competitive advantage, none
were interested in positioning their organisations in this way. Accordingly, few saw any benefit in voluntarily
extending the reporting they do. Five non-reporters (transport, two mining, consumer staples, financial services)
actually regarded SR as a waste of time, a distraction to core business, and something that offered few real
business outcomes: ‘it’s seen to be a waste of time . . . just see it as a distraction to making money. . .. They [managers]
can’t see necessarily the value-add in the process’ (T2).
4
Fields in institutional theory relate to the social context of which business organisations are a part. Sometimes considered analogous to industry,
they can also form around geographical locations, strategies and issues. They are groups in which various participants interact regularly, partici-
pants view themselves as peers, connected in some common area of organisational life.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Five non-reporters state that they need to understand their social and environmental risks, as these can negatively
impact profits, but they don’t believe SR offers much of a contribution to doing so, and the costs would outweigh the
benefits. The consumer staples representative described the production of a SR as an inefficient use of resources:
Personal opinion, what is a sustainability report other than a PR brochure? Would it not be better to spend
your $100K, $200K of production money on actual efficiency projects? (C1)
Some perceived that greater disclosure raised more risks than benefits. A miner and retailer believed that disclosing
too much information is risky as it may draw unwanted attention to the company This supports O’Dwyer’s (2002)
finding that more detailed disclosure could implicitly provide legitimacy to some stakeholders’ claims and cause
concern among powerful stakeholders, such as fund managers.
Some non-reporters did see some benefits related to employees, but the views were quite mixed. Four maintained
that their employees were not interested in or expected SR, but two considered that it could have some benefits in
terms of retention and morale. One retailer is issuing its first SR for its employees only:
We’ve never had a Sustainability Report. It’s not going to be public, it’s going to be an internal report, and
we’re going to use it for team member engagement and education for the first year and see how it goes. . . I
don’t think that the business is ready yet for it to go external and have it separate. I don’t think we’re advanced
enough in our framework to have a separate report. (R3)
While a business case is widely advocated as a key driver for SR, especially amongst practitioner and interest groups
(Group 100, 2003; KPMG and Group 100, 2008), these benefits are not convincing for non-reporters. Several studies
point out that management attitudes shape the way an organisation identifies and manages sustainability expectations
(see Bansal and Roth, 2000; Gunningham et al., 2003). For some non-reporters, managers simply do not believe that
SR is important for achieving the business outcomes being pursued.
Sustainability Reporting is a Nice-to-Do, Not a Must-Do

Given the lack pressure firms experience for information about their social/environmental performance and that
firms appear able to easily move in and out of the influence exerted by their industries/fields, SR is completely at
the discretion of organisational managers. It is thus organisational imperatives, rather than social or accountability
drivers, that influence SR decisions. For most of the interviewees, SR is seen as a luxury and not an obligation.
Seven of the non-reporters expressed the view that, despite being ASX200 listed firms, they are small companies
with few resources and thus they don’t have the resources to devote to SR, as one transport interviewee explained:
In reporting we don’t have the luxury of being able to devote one or two people to sustainability and reporting
so it’s just like a lot of the things we do, we wear multiple hats. So I guess we’re less focused on reporting and
more focused on actually doing things that make a difference in the community. (T1)
In 15 of the non-reporting firms, there were no people dedicated to sustainability. Any reporting sits within
a compliance area. While three interviewees said that when they have the resources, they intend to start SR,
non-reporting couched in terms of ‘resources’ and ‘luxury’, disguises the lack of recognition about accountability
and supports the prioritising of economic over social and environmental impacts. Reporting is discretionary, and
the choice to undertake it is not made. Non-reporters feel little need or value in doing so. Firms, however, can and
do find resources when pressures threaten legitimacy or survival or when behaviour or activities are seen as a key
part of strategic positioning.
Compliance Culture
Several non-reporters view SR as unnecessary. For these firms, a different logic prevails. Those viewing it as
unnecessary tend to be subject to extensive reporting requirements set down by regulatory bodies. The mandatory
DOI: 10.1002/bse
requirements are extensive and involve detailed social and/or environmental compliance reports that run to several
hundred pages. For the mining non-reporters, these reports typically provide baseline benchmarks of existing
social/heritage/environmental features, an analysis of sensitive flora and fauna, and include detailed remedial plans.
The extensiveness of reporting requirements results in the employment of dedicated environmental specialists,
trained in environmental science.
Mandatory reporting is often seen as desirable within the social/environmental accounting and reporting literature,
but for these non-reporting firms it encourages a compliance culture coupled with structural arrangements that
separate operational sustainability from corporate strategy and decision-making. For some of the environmental/
sustainability managers interviewed, there was little awareness of how sustainability related to the organisation’s
governance and strategy arrangements. An operational focus prevailed. One miner stated the situation thus:
We have a sustainability report that has to be out every year and that report is part of our licence requirements,
but it isn’t really for external consumption, other than the environmental agency it goes to. (M7)
A compliance culture contributes to a weak, instrumental understanding of sustainability. For six firms, there was
no real sense that non-reporters needed to go beyond compliance reporting, they did not see any value in ‘mimicking’
the ASX100 companies who issue sustainability reports, and there was a sense that any expansion of reporting and
disclosure would most likely come from regulators. There was an expectation that if it was necessary it would
be required. Five non-reporters are experiencing increasing pressure to report from regulators, because they have
reached threshold limits that require them to report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting
Scheme (NGERS) and Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) legislation, as one miner described:
I certainly think that the trend is going towards more significant reporting. The impost of the EEO and
NGERS, I guess just from my experience, those two regulatory requirements in itself have required additional
reporting on our part. . . and [our] capacity . . . is becoming quite problematic just from a perspective of having
to maintain current regulatory reporting requirements. (M10)
Structure and/or Culture Does Not Encourage Reporting

For the non-reporters not subject to extensive regulatory requirements to report, organisational characteristics play a
large part in how SR is viewed and understood. Four of the non-reporters believe that sustainability is part of the way
they do business – it is part of their culture – but the cultural norms do not extend to SR. One energy interviewee
pointed out:
I don’t think it’s within the company’s culture to ignore [sustainability]. . . the focus is almost always on doing the
right thing, whatever that might be; and so ignoring it isn’t really ever an option . . . And I think the company,
because it has been committed to the various components of sustainability for so long, it didn’t necessarily see
the need [to do SR]. They were like well we’re doing it anyway, why do we need to tell the world about it. It should
be enough just to be doing it and investing our resources in the actual doing as opposed to those companies that
spend the millions telling people what they do without actually doing it on the ground. (E2)
A financial services interviewee explained that the organisational structure is simply not in place to facilitate SR
and a transport participant suggested the reporting and monitoring culture within their organisation prevented
moves to introduce SR:
We’d only do things if it had a pure commercial focus otherwise we couldn’t afford to do it, let alone interested
in doing it culturally. . . you have a culture where divisions feel threatened in that someone from outside their
business wants to get data on them and measure them and report on them, they can find it quite
threatening. . . GRI [Global Reporting Initiative] requires I think quite a leap of faith in management feeling
comfortable with putting up information about yourself and some bold statements from senior management
about their commitment. (T2)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Another two interviewees pointed out boundary issues in terms of how their organisation fitted together. These two
operated according to a franchise model where sustainability issues occurred within the franchises, but the franchisor
was not interested in initiatives to reduce impacts (such as energy efficiency and waste reduction programs). This not
only inhibited sustainability-related innovations, it also made meaningful organisation-wide reporting difficult. In
essence, the franchisees are interested in financial sustainability only, as one retailer explains:
As a property owner, their object is to get the most return out of their buildings and creating investment and
waiting for pay-back reduces that return. I think that’s the key driver. (R2)
Internal characteristics have been identified within the literature as important for shaping SR and disclosure
(Adams, 2002; Bebbington et al., 2009). The study found evidence of the significance of the chief executive officer
(CEO) or senior management in decisions about SR in that explicit instructions would need to be made at the top of
the organisation in order for SR to happen:
The executives of the company would have to make it clear it was a priority and it was something that they wish
for us to do. It’s like any organisation; if there’s no compelling reason, there’s no push to do it, then get on
with something else that there is a reason to do. That’s my attitude. I would like to see us do it personally,
and I would be responsible, but I’m not going to rush off and do something that doesn’t have the backing
of the Board. (R2)
In a similar vein, the gaming and transport interviewees mentioned that a new chairman or CEO could drive
cultural change and support SR.
More than half of the non-reporters believe that the requirements for SR will increase in the future, primarily
driven by increasing regulation and a gradual ‘mainstreaming’ of sustainability into business:
I think the whole market is going through an adjustment phase around how ESG [environment, social and
governance] enters and then embeds itself within the mainstream funds management process. I would say
that there’s evidence of momentum that’s building, but depending on who you talk to in the broader industry,
you probably get different views as to how quickly or not that uptake is actually occurring. I think there’s a
strong recognition that it will only become increasingly important. (FS1)
Conclusion
Surprisingly, the social and organisational factors that were found to explain non-reporting in the sample of 23 firms are
not a whole lot different from the early explorations of the barriers and disincentives associated with environmental
reporting (Noci, 2000; Solomon and Lewis, 2002). The interviewed managers see SR as unnecessary or irrelevant: they
do not accept the business case – largely because they experience very little pressure, and they are thus unmotivated to
bring about the structural and cultural changes necessary to facilitate it. While a compliance culture pervades many of
these firms (especially those in the mining industry), for others SR is simply seen as a luxury – something that is ‘nice to
do’, but not a ‘must do’ for those that ‘fly under the radar’.
The managers are, however, not ignorant about sustainability or unaware of the social and environmental impacts
of their operations. But early assertions about a changed business landscape and broader societal and community-level
interests (and demands) regarding sustainability (Elkington, 1997; Porter and van der Linde, 1995) may have been a
bit optimistic. Despite early studies of SR pointing to legitimacy as a key motivating driver, the firms in the sample do
not experience sustained, societal and stakeholder pressure about their social/environmental performance, nor
are there stakeholder demands for information about their performance. Perhaps legitimacy is something
relevant to only the very largest firms, or it is something that is no longer perceived as being obtainable through
extended disclosure and SR.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Given that the firms respond to pressures on a situationally specific and largely pragmatic basis, firms are
responding to any shifts in the business landscape in a wide range of different ways. For these firms, there are
simply more effective and direct ways of dealing with the issues that arise than by devoting resources to
sustainability reporting. Sustainability, more generally, is perceived mostly as a risk management issue – but
not something that raises new accountability considerations. The non-reporting firms take a very specific
‘decision-usefulness’ view of their communications and disclosure. The sample firms do not report because
no-one asks for the information. They do not believe, contrary to the urges and arguments of some reporting
proponents (see, for example, Gray et al., 1988, 1997; Cooper and Owen, 2007), they have a duty to discharge
accountability for their impacts under any notion of a ‘social contract’. For some reason, an ‘accountability
revolution’ has not occurred, and a very weak and instrumental understanding of sustainability pervades the
non-reporting firms in this study. In this context, it is not hard to appreciate that ‘business case’ arguments
are unconvincing for many non-reporting business firms, and notions of reporting fulfilling stakeholder
accountability are entirely absent.
Given that a decision-usefulness perspective prevails, the findings suggest that the route to encouraging greater
(and better quality) uptake of sustainability reporting rests on stakeholders (e.g. government, industry associations,
institutional investors) exerting pressure for better and more detailed disclosure from business firms. Similarly,
interest groups and regulators need to engage more widely to understand the sort of information that is desired
by groups and stakeholders seeking to influence business activity. Firms do appear responsive to stakeholders
they perceive as possessing power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997).
While the firms are responsive to regulatory demands, and this has long been argued to be necessary to
generate improved disclosure and reporting (Gray et al., 1996), it also generates a compliance culture that results
in structural arrangements that limit broader organisational learning and consciousness about sustainability.
Social and environmental matters are outsourced or dealt with by specialists with little connection to corporate
governance, strategy and decision-making. If new regulatory requirements are to be enacted they should be
carefully designed to deliver corporate as well as operational outcomes. Changes to the regulations surrounding
the content and form of the annual report would help to shift management thinking by more than what extensive
and detailed operational monitoring delivers.
A word of caution is required, however, in over-generalising the results and conclusions. The sample of respondent
non-reporters contains a significant number of mining organisations from Western Australia, a remote and distinctive
resource-rich region. As such, the results may provide a particular insight into a distinctive group of large companies
that are exposed to lesser stakeholder pressure and are more able to resist it because of the particular culture that
operates in such zones. The geography and high concentrations of particular organisations and their enterprising
culture may provide further factors that explain organisational resistance to reporting initiatives. Further research
on such zones, organisational concentrations and cultures is required.
Lastly, the analysis points to some interesting observations about how reporting is spreading, and the basis on
which this is occurring. The study did not find common industry profiles for the non-reporters. It was not that all
of the mining companies had similar perspectives, and some issues were more salient for some firms than others
– even in the same industries. These observations point to an institutionalisation processes that span industries,
but given the existence of non-reporters, are not necessarily part of general, mainstream organisational fields.
Theoretical developments need to shift to consider whether SR is becoming a mainstream organisational activity
or whether it is appropriate and destined to remain the preserve of a subset of organisations in some countries
and some industries.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the work of the three research assistants who all made valuable contributions to the project at
various stages: Lalitha Nair, Erin Castellas and Shalini Samuel. We gratefully acknowledge the research grant from CPA
Australia that funded this research study. This paper is based on the report submitted to CPA Australia in fulfilment of the
grant conditions.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
References
Adams C. 2002. Internal organisational factors influencing social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 15(2): 223–250.
Adams C, Frost G. 2006. Accessibility and functionality of the corporate website: Implications for sustainability reporting. Business Strategy and
the Environment 15(4): 275–287.
Andersen O. 2003. Environmental reporting and transport – the case of a public transport company. [Article]. Business Strategy & the Environment
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc) 12(6): 386–399. doi: 10.1002/bse.381
Andersson L, Bateman T. 2000. Individual environmental initiative: championing natural environmental issues in US business organisations.
Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 548–570.
Andriof J, McIntosh M. 2001. Introduction. In Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship, Andriof J, McIntosh M (Eds.). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 13–24.
Atkinson G. 2000. Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2): 235–252.
Australian Council of Super Investors. 2011. Sustainability reporting practices of the S&P/ASX200. Author: Melbourne, Australia.
Bansal P. 2005. Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal 26: 197–218.
Bansal P, Roth K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 717–736.
Bebbington J, Higgins C, Frame, B. 2009. Initiating sustainable development reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing &
Berman S, Wicks A, Kotha S, Jones T. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models
and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 488–506.
Blaikie NWH. 2000. Designing social research: the logic of anticipation. Polity Press: Malden, MA.
Borkowski SC, Welsh MJ, Wentzel K. 2010. Johnson & Johnson: A Model for Sustainability Reporting. [Article]. Strategic Finance 92(3): 29–37.
Brown N, Deegan C. 1998. The public disclosure of environmental performance information: A dual test of media agenda setting theory and
legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research 29(1): 21–41.
Burritt R. 2002. Environmental reporting in Australia: Current practices and issues for the future. Business Strategy and the Environment
11(6): 391–406.
Campbell T, Mollica D. 2009. Introduction. In Sustainability, Campbell T, Mollica D (Eds.). Ashgate: Farnham, Surrey, UK; xv–xliv.
Cerin P. 2002. Communication in corporate environmental reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9(2):
46–66.
Cooper SM, Owen DL. 2007. Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society
32: 649–667.
Cormier D, Gordon I. 2001. An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14(5):
587–616.
Cormier D, Magnan M. 1999. Corporate environmental disclosure strategies: Determinants, costs and benefits. Journal of Accounting, Auditing
and Finance 14(4): 429–451.
Dechant K, Altman B, Browning R, Keeney T. 1994. Environmental leadership: From compliance to competitive advantage. The Academy of
Management Executive 8(3): 7–28.
Deegan C. 2002. The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 15(3): 282–311.
Deegan C, Gordon B. 1996. A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research 26(3):
187–199.
Dillard J, Rigsby J, Goodman C. 2004. The making and remaking of organization context: Duality and the institutionalisation process. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 17(4): 506–542.
DiMaggio P, Powell W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review 48: 147–160.
Elkington J (Ed.). 1997. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st Century business. Earthscan: London.
Ernst and Ernst. 1978. Social responsibility disclosure: 1978 survey. Author: Cleveland, OH.
Gladwin T. 1993. The meaning of greening: A plea for organizational theory. In Environmental strategies for industry, Fisher K, Schot J (Eds.).
Island Press: Washington, DC.
Gray R, Bebbington J. 2000. Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of business and
accounting. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management 1: 1–44.
Gray R, Bebbington J, Waters D (Eds.). 1993. Accounting for the environment. ACCA: London.
Gray R, Dey C, Owen D, Evans R, Zadek S. 1997. Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and
procedures, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10(3): 325–364.
Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S. 1995. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK
disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2): 47–77.
Gray RH, Milne MJ. 2002. Sustainability Reporting: Who’s Kidding Whom? Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand July: 66–70.
Gray R, Milne MJ. 2004. Towards Reporting on The Triple Bottom Line: Mirages, methods and myths. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add
Up?, Henriques A, Richardson J (eds.). Earthscan: London.
Gray R, Owen D, Adams C. 1996. Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Prentice
Hall: London.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Gray R, Owen D, Maunders K. 1988. Corporate social reporting: emerging trends in accountability and the social contract. Accounting, Auditing &
Group 100. 2003. Sustainability: A guide to triple bottom line reporting. Business Council of Australia: Sydney.
Gunningham N, Kagan R, Thornton D. 2003. Shades of green: Business, regulation, and the environment. Stanford University Press: Stanford,
California.
Guthrie J, Parker L. 1990. Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting 3:
159–176.
Hedberg C-J, von Malmborg F. 2003. The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. [Article].
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10(3): 153–164. doi: 10.1002/csr.038
Higgins C, Milne M, van Gramberg B. 2011. Towards a more nuanced understanding of sustainable development reporting in Australia. In 25th
Australian and New Zeal and Academy of Management Conference, 7–9 December 2011. ANZAM (eds): Wellington, NZ.
Higgins C, Larrinaga C. 2012. Sustainability reporting: Insights from institutional theory. In Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, 2nd edn,
Unerman J, Bebbington J, O’Dwyer B (Eds.). Routledge: London.
Higgins C, Walker R. 2012 in press. Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum. doi:
10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003
Hoffman A. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42(4):
351–371.
Isenmann R, Lenz C. 2002. Internet use for corporate environmental reporting: Current challenges, technical benefits, practical guidance.
Business Strategy and the Environment 11(2): 181–202.
Jensen J, Berg N. 2011. Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting: An institutionalist approach. Business
Strategy and the Environment. 21(5): 299–316. doi: 10.1002/bse.740
Kolk A. 2003. Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment 12(5): 279–291.
KPMG. 2008. International survey of corporate social responsibility reporting, 2008. KPMG International: Amsterdam.
KPMG. 2011. The KPMG survey of corporate social responsibility reporting. KPMG: London.
KPMG and Group 100. 2008. Sustainability reporting: A guide. KPMG: Melbourne.
Lindblom CK. 1993. The implications for organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Proceedings of the Critical
Perspectives on Accounting conference, New York.
Marshall S, Brown DL. 2003. Corporate environmental reporting: What’s in a metric. Business Strategy and the Environment 12(3): 87–106.
Martin AD, Hadley DJ. 2008. Corporate environmental non-reporting – a UK FTSE 350 perspective. [Article]. Business Strategy & the Environment
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc) 17(4): 245–259. doi: 10.1002/bse.518
Mathews MR. 1997. Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal 10(4): 481–531.
Mathews MR. 2002. A brief description and preliminary analysis of recent social and environmental accounting research literature. Plenary
session: CSEAR conference, Melbourne.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks (first published
1984).
Milne MJ. 2007. Downsizing Reg (me and you)! Addressing the ‘real’ sustainability agenda at work and home. In Social Accounting, Mega
Accounting and Beyond: Festschrift in Honour of Martin (Reg) Mathews, Gray RH, Guthrie J (eds.). CSEAR: St. Andrews.
Milne M, Gray R. 2007. Future prospects for corporate sustainability reporting. In Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Unerman J,
Bebbington J, O’Dwyer B (Eds.). Routledge: London.
Milne MJ, Ball A, Gray RH. 2008. W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative and Corporate Sustainability
Reporting, American Accounting Association Annual Meetings, Anaheim, CA, August.
Milne M, Tregidga H, Walton S. 2009. Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Accounting, Auditing and
Mitchell CG, Hill T. 2009. Corporate social and environmental reporting and the impact of internal environmental policy in South Africa.
[Article]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16(1): 48–60.
Mitchell R, Agle B, Wood D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really
counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–886.
Morhardt J. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet. Business Strategy and the Environment 19(7):
436–452.
Morhardt J, Baird S, Freeman K. 2002. Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI2000, ISO14031 and other criteria.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9: 215–233.
Neuman WL. 2003. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Education Inc.: New York.
Noci G. 2000. Environmental reporting in Italy: current practice and future developments. [Article]. Business Strategy & the Environment
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc) 9(4): 211–223.
O’Dwyer B. 2002. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: An Irish story. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15(3):
406–436.
O’Dwyer B. 2003. Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal 16(4): 523–557.
Owen D, Swift T, Bowerman M, Humphreys C. 2000. The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social
champions? The European Accounting Review 9(1): 81–98.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Parker L. 2005. Social and environmental accounting research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
18(6): 842–860.
Parker L. 2011. Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research: A coming of age. Accounting Forum 35(2): 1–10.
Patten D. 1992. Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 17: 471–475.
Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications: New York.
Porter M, van der Linde C. 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives
9(4): 97–118.
Roberts C. 1991. Environmental disclosures: A note on reporting practices in mainland Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
4(3): 62–71.
Roberts RW. 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(6): 595–612.
Solomon A, Lewis L. 2002. Incentives and disincentives for corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment
11(2): 154–169.
Solomon J, Solomon A, Norton SD, Joseph N. 2011. Private climate change reporting: An emerging discourse of risk and opportunity? Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 24(8): 1119–1148.
Spence C. 2007. Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20(6): 855–882.
Strauss AL, Corbin JM. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks (first published 1990).
Stray S, Ballantine J. 2000. A sectoral comparison of corporate environmental reporting and disclosure. Eco-management and Auditing 7(1):
165–177.
SustainAbility. 1998. The non-reporting report. Author: London.
UNEP/SustainAbility. 2004. Risk and opportunity: Best practice in non-financial reporting. The Global Reporters 2004 survey of Sustainability Reporting.
Author: London.
von Geibler J, Liedtke C, Wallbaum H, Schaller S. 2006. Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotechnology
industry. [Article]. Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc) 15(5): 334–346. doi: 10.1002/bse.540
Vormedal I, Ruud A. 2009. Sustainability reporting in Norway – an assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political
drivers. [Article]. Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc) 18(4): 207–222. doi: 10.1002/bse.560
Wheeler D, Elkington J. 2001. The end of the corporate environmental report? Or the advent of cybernetic sustainability reporting and
communication? Business Strategy and the Environment 10(1): 1–14.
World Industry Council for the Environment. 1994. Environmental reporting: A manager’s guide. International Chamber of Commerce: Paris.
Zadek S. 1998. Balancing performance, ethics, and accountability. Journal of Business Ethics 17(3): 1241–1441.
DOI: 10.1002/bse

Bus Strat Env - 2012 - Stubbs - Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability Reports

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bus Strat Env - 2012 - Stubbs - Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability Reports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 22, 456–470 (2013)

Why Do Companies Not Produce Sustainability

Received 24 April 2012; revised 26 July 2012; accepted 14 August 2012

Research Approach and Methods

Code Industry Role

C1 Consumer staples Sustainability manager

Table 1. List of research participants

Table 2. Interview guide

Results and Discussion

Lack of External Stakeholder Pressure

Concern from institutional investors, while an acknowledgement of organisational accountability to owners

Sustainability Reporting is a Nice-to-Do, Not a Must-Do

Structure and/or Culture Does Not Encourage Reporting

You might also like