Corporate Sustainability Practices in Polluting Industries: Evidence from India, China and USA

Mishra, Prem Sagar; Kumar, Ajay; Das, Niladri

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Corporate Sustainability Practices in Polluting Industries: Evidence from India, China and USA

Autorzy

Mishra Prem Sagar , Kumar Ajay , Das Niladri

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Korporacyjne praktyki zrównoważonego rozwoju w branżach zanieczyszczających środowisko: dowody z Indii, Chin i USA

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

In recent years, the tilt of the corporate world towards non-financial reporting can be clearly seen from traditional accounting practices. Sustainability reporting disclosures are an important tool for providing information about the environmental and social performance of companies to their various stakeholders. From a financial perspective, for any firm, there is always a possibility of reporting more of the information that favours their interests or conceal that which is not in their favour. This study evaluates the annual and sustainability reports of 380 Indian, 400 Chinese and 400 USA companies from five highly polluting industries on the basis of GRI (global reporting initiatives) guidelines. From the result, it is inferred that the findings are consistent with the legitimacy theory. The result shows that the profitability and capital structure of firms in the sample do not affect the sustainability reporting practices significantly. In addition, larger firms have a tendency to disclose more information in their annual and sustainability reports than smaller firms.

W ostatnich latach wyraźnie widać w tradycyjnych praktykach rachunkowych przechylenie świata korporacyjnego w kierunku sprawozdawczości niefinansowej. Raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju są ważnym narzędziem dostarczającym informacji o środowiskowych i społecznych wynikach działalności przedsiębiorstw różnym interesariuszom. Z perspektywy finansowej, dla każdej firmy, zawsze istnieje możliwość zgłoszenia większej ilości informacji, które faworyzują ich interesy lub ukrywają te, które są niekorzystne. W artykule oceniono roczne raporty dotyczące zrównoważonego rozwoju 380 indyjskich, 400 chińskich i 400 amerykańskich firm z pięciu wysoce zanieczyszczających środowisko branż na podstawie wytycznych GRI (Globalnych Inicjatyw Sprawozdawczych). Dokonane ustalenia są zgodne z teorią legalności. Otrzymane wyniki pokazują, że rentowność i struktura kapitałowa firm nie wpływają znacząco na praktyki raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju. Ponadto większe firmy mają tendencję do ujawniania większej ilości informacji w swoich rocznych raportach i raportach dotyczących zrównoważonego rozwoju niż mniejsze firmy.

Słowa kluczowe

environmental management sustainability reporting polluting industries sustainability accounting legitimacy theory

zarządzanie środowiskiem raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju branże zanieczyszczające środowisko rachunkowość zrównoważonego rozwoju teoria legalności

Wydawca

Lublin University of Technology

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2020

Tom

Vol. 15, nr 1

Strony

161--168

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 73 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mishra Prem Sagar

psmcoal@gmail.com

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826004, India

autor

Kumar Ajay

ajay.dms16@gmail.com

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826004, India

autor

Das Niladri

niladri_pnu2003@yahoo.co.in

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826004, India

Bibliografia

1. ADAMS C., NARAYANAN V., 2007, The standardization of sustainability reporting, in: Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, ed. Unerman J., Bebbington J., O’Dwyer B., Routledge, London and New York, p. 70-85.
2. AKISIK O., GAL G., 2014, Financial performance and reviews of corporate social responsibility reports, in: Journal of Management Control, 25(3-4), p. 259- 288.
3. AUPPERLE G., CARROL A., HATFIELD J., 1985, An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability, in: Academy of Management Journal, 22, p. 501-515.
4. BANSAL P., HOFFMAN A. J., 2012, The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5. BEBBINGTON J., LARRINAGA C., 2014, Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), p. 395-413.
6. BEBBINGTON J., LARRINAGA C., MONEVA J. M., 2008, Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management, in: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(3), p. 337-361.
7. BEBBINGTON J., UNERMAN J., O’DWYER, B., 2014, Sustainability accounting and accountability, Routledge, Abingdon.
8. BEWLEY K., LI Y., 2000, Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: a voluntary disclosure perspective, in: Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, p. 201-226.
9. BRAMMERS., PAVELINS., 2008, Factorsinfluencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure, in: Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, p. 120-136. 167
10. BRANCO M., RODRIGUES L., 2008, Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 83, p. 68- –701
11. BURRITT R. J., TINGEY-HOLIOYAK J., 2012, Forging cleaner production: the importance of academic-practitioner links for successful sustainability embedded carbon accounting, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 36 (1) , p. 39-47.
12. CAMPBELL J. L., 2007, Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility, in: Academy of Management Review, 32(3), p. 946-967.
13. CHEN J. C., ROBERTS R. W., 2010, Towards a more integrated understanding of the organizationsociety relationship: Implications for social and environmental accounting research, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), p. 651-665.
14. CHEN S., BOUVAIN P., 2009, Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 87, p. 299- 317.
15. CLARKSON P. M., LI Y., RICHARDSON G. D., VASVARI F. P., 2008, Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(5), p. 303-327.
16. COLI M., NISSI E., RAPPOSELLI A., 2011, Monitoring environmental efficiency: an application to Italian provinces, in: Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(1), p. 38-43.
17. DEEGAN C., BLOMQUIST C., 2006, Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4-5), p. 343-372.
18. DYLLICK T, HOCKERTS K., 2002, Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability, in: Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, p. 130-141.
19. ECCLES R., IOANNOU I., SERAFEIM G., 2012, The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance, in: Working paper, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston.
20. ELKINGTON J., 2002, The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century, Oxford Press, Oxford.
21. FIELDS T.D., LYS T.Z., VINCENT L, 2001, Empirical research on accounting choice, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, p. 255-307.
22. FRIEDMAN, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, in: Corporate social responsibility. Volume 1: theories and concepts of corporate social responsibility, eds. Crane A, Matten D, Sage Publications, London, p. 69-74.
23. FROOMAN J., 1999, Stakeholder influence strategies, in: The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), p. 191-205.
24. GAMERSCHLAG R., MÖLLER K., VERBEETEN F., 2011, Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany, in: Review of Managerial Science, 5 (23), p. 233-262.
25. GAVANA G., GOTTARDO P., MOISELLO A.M., 2017, Sustainability Reporting in Family Firms: A Panel Data Analysis, in: Sustainability, 9, p. 38.
26. GODHA A., JAIN P., 2015, Sustainability reporting trend in Indian companies as per GRI framework: a comparative study, in: South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 4(1), p. 62-73.
27. GOMEZ-MEJIA L.R., HAYNES K.T., NUNEZNICKEL M., JACOBSON K.J.L., MOYANOFUENTES J., 2007, Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, p. 106-137.
28. GOND J.P., GRUBNIC S., HERZING C., MOON J., 2012, Configuring management control systems: theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability, in: Management Accounting Research, 23(3), p. 205-223.
29. GRAY R., 2010, Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organizations and the planet, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), p. 47-62.
30. GRAY R., KOUHY R., LAVERS S., 1995, Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure, in: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), p. 47-71.
31. GRI, 2013, https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/GRI-amongthe-most-popular-CSR-instruments.aspx (13.09.2017).
32. GRI, 2009, https://www.globalreporting.org/resource library/GRI-Sustainability-Report-2009-2010.pdf (30.09.2017).
33. HANIFFA R.M., COOKE T.E., 2005, The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting, in: Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, p. 391-430.
34. HENRI J., BOIRAL O., ROY M.J., 2013, The tracking of environmental costs: motivations and impacts, in: European Accounting Review , DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2013.837400.
35. HUSTED B.W., SALZAR J., 2006, Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance, in: Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), p. 75-91.
36. IPPC (INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE), 2014, IPCC fifth assessment synthesis report, https://www.ipcc.ch, (13.09.2017).
37. ISLAM M. A., DEEGAN C., 2010, Media pressures and corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance: a case study of two Global clothing and sports retail companies, in: Accounting and Business Research, 40(2), p. 131-148.
38. IYER V., LULSEGED A., 2013, Does family status impact US firms’ sustainability reporting?, in: Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4, p. 163-189.
39. JACKSON T., 2009, Prosperity without growth, Earthscan, London.
40. KALM M., GOMEZ-MEJIA L.R., 2016, Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms, in: Revista de Administração, 51, p. 409-411.
41. KAUR A., SHARMA P.C., 2017, Environment Development Sustainability, DOI: 10.1007/s10668-017-9961-5.
42. KOLK A., 2005, Environmental reporting by multinationals from the Triad: convergence or divergence, in: Management International Review, 45(1), p. 145- 166. 168
43. KUMAR A., DAS N., 2018, Sustainability Reporting Practices in Emerging Economies: A Cross-Country Study of BRICS Nations, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, 13(2), p. 17- 25.
44. KOTHARI A., 2013, Development and ecological sustainability in India: Possibilities for Post-2015 framework, in: Oxfam India working paper series, http://www.environmentportal.in/files/file/development%20and%20ecological%20sustainability%20 in%20india.pdf (15.05.2016).
45. KUOSMANEN T., KUOSMANEN N., 2009, How not to measure sustainable value (and how one might), in: Ecological Economics, 69(2), p. 235-243.
46. LAINE M., 2010, Towards sustaining status quo: Business talk of sustainability in Finnish corporate disclosures 1987-2005, in: European Accounting Review, 19(2), p. 247-274.
47. LINDBLOM C. K., 1993, The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure, in: The critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York.
48. LOH L., THOMAS T., WANG Y., 2017, Sustainability Reporting and Firm Value: Evidence from Singapore-Listed Companies, in: Sustainability, DOI:10.3390/su9112112.
49. MALSCH B., 2013, Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of corporate social responsibility, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(2), p. 149-168.
50. MANI V., GUNASEKARAN A., PAPADOPOULOS T., HAZEN B., DUBEY R., 2016, Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evidence from India, in: Resources Conservation and Recycling, 111, p. 42-52.
51. MCWILLIAMS A., SIEGEL D., 2001, Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective, in: The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), p. 117-127.
52. MEBRATU D., 1998, Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Historical and Conceptual Review, in: Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, p. 493-520.
53. MILNE M. J., 2002, Positive accounting theory, political costs and social disclosure analyses: a critical look, in: Critical Perspect Account, 13, p. 369- 395.
54. MILNE M. J., GRAY R., 2013, W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustainability reporting, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), p. 13-29.
55. MILNE M., TREGIDGA H., WALTON S., 2009, Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting, in: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(8), p. 1211-1257.
56. MUNDA G., SAISANA M., 2011, Methodological considerations on regional sustainability assessment based on multicriteria and sensitivity analysis, in: Regional Studies, 45(2), p. 261-276.
57. OWEN D. L., 2008, Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research, in: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), p: 240-267.
58. PARKER L. D., 2005, Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box, in: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), p. 842-860.
59. PARRIS T. M., KATES R. W., 2003, Characterizing and measuring sustainable development, in: Annual Review of environment and resources, 28(1), p. 559- 586.
60. PERES-NETO P. R., LEGENDRE P., DRAY S., BORCARD, D., 2006, Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions, in: Ecology, 87(10), p. 2614-2625.
61. ROCKSTRÖM J., STEFFEN W., NOONE K., PERSSON Å., CHAPIN III F.S., LAMBIN E.F., LENTON T.M., SCHEFFER M., FOLKE C., SCHELLNHUBER H.J., NYKVIST B., 2009, A safe operating space for humanity, in: Nature, 461(7263), p. 472.
62. RODRIGUE M., MAGNAN M., & CHO C. H., 2013, Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical examination, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), p. 107-129.
63. SODHI M.S., 2015, Conceptualizing social responsibility in operations via stakeholder resource‐based view, in: Production and Operations Management, 24(9), p. 1375-1389.
64. SPAR D., LAMURE L., 2003, The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business, in: California Management Review, 45(3), p. 78-101.
65. SPENCE C., 2009, Social accounting’s emancipatory potential, in: Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(2), p. 205-227.
66. SUCHMAN M. C., 1995, Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches, in: Academy of Management Review, 20(3), p. 571-610.
67. TANG C. S., ZHOU S., 2012, Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations, in: European Journal of Operational Research, 223(3), p. 585-594.
68. TREGIDGA H., MILNE M., KEARINS K., 2014, (Re)presenting ‘sustainable organizations’, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), p. 477- 494.
69. TYTECA D.,1998, Sustainability indicators at the firm level, in: Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2(4), p. 61-77.
70. WATTS R.L., ZIMMERMANN J.L., 1990, Positive accounting theory: a ten year perspective, in: Account Review, 65(1), p. 131-156.
71. WINFIELD M., GIBSON R. B., MARKVART T., GAUDREAU K., TAYLOR J., 2010, Implications of sustainability assessment for electricity system design: The case of the Ontario Power Authority‘s integrated power system plan, in: Energy Policy, 38(8), p. 4115-4126.
72. ZIENTARA P., 2015 Socioemotional wealth and corporate social responsibility: A critical analysis, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), p. 185-199.
73. ZHOU H., YANG Y., CHEN Y., ZHU J., 2017, Data Envelopment Analysis Application in Sustainability: The Origins, Development and Future Directions, in: European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), p. 1-16.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-7bb7f415-0eed-44bb-bc41-cfdceb5b9b49