Sustainability Reporting Practices in Emerging Economies: A Cross-Country Study of BRICS Nations

Kumar, Ajay; Das, Niladri

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Sustainability Reporting Practices in Emerging Economies: A Cross-Country Study of BRICS Nations

Autorzy

Kumar Ajay , Das Niladri

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

http://ekorozwoj.pollub.pl/

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Raportowanie praktyk zrównoważonego rozwoju w gospodarkach wschodzących: studium porównawcze krajów z grupy BRICS

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

In the backdrop of a growing geo-political and economic importance of emerging economies, the objective of this paper is to ascertain whether firms in emerging economy are willing to match their increased economic weight with greater social responsibility. Given the relative scarcity of research in Sustainability Reporting (SR) practices in BRICS, particular attention is to be given to firms from these countries. The research question is examined through the analysis of differences between firms from BRICS nations in terms of various indicators of sustainability reporting practices. This study aims to evaluate corporate sustainability reporting according to the GRI framework developed by the Global Reporting Initiative. The firms in the sample display clear evidence of a divide among emerging economies in SR practices. India, score the highest across all dimensions i.e. economic, environmental and social followed by China while Russian companies have poor score across all categories. The leading industry complying with GRI reporting practices in case of India is Computer Hardware & Software industry with sustainability score of 94.02% and in Brazil, it is Pulp & Paper with 87.97% sustainability disclosure score. In Russia, it is Oil & Gas with 60.84% and in the case of China it is Automobiles & Transport with 71.06% disclosure score and retail industry in South Africa with 62.84% disclosurescore.

W kontekście rosnącego geopolitycznego i ekonomicznego znaczenia gospodarek wschodzących, celem tego artykułu jest ustalenie, czy firmy funkcjonujące w ramach tych gospodarek są gotowe dostosować swoją zwiększoną wagę ekonomiczną do większej odpowiedzialności społecznej. Biorąc pod uwagę względną rzadkość badań prowadzonych w zakresie raportowania praktyk na rzecz zrównoważonego rozwoju w krajach BRICS (Brazylii, Rosji, Indii, Chinach i RPA), szczególną uwagę należy zwrócić na firmy pochodzące z tych właśnie krajów. W badaniach przeprowadzono analizę różnic odnoszących się do firm z grupy krajów BRICS w kontekście różnych wskaźników związanych z raportowaniem praktyk na rzecz zrównoważonego rozwoju. Celem była ocena praktyk raportowania odpowiedzialności korporacyjnej z wykorzystaniem platformy GRI opracowanej przez Global Reporting Initiative. Ocena wybranych firm ukazała zróżnicowanie, jakie występuje w poszczególnych krajach wschodzących gospodarek w zakresie realizowanych praktyk. Indie osiągają najwyższe wyniki we wszystkich wymiarach rozwoju zrównoważonego, tj. gospodarczym, środowiskowym i społecznym, za nimi plasują się Chiny, podczas gdy rosyjskie firmy osiągają słabsze wyniki we wszystkich kategoriach. Wiodącą branżą zgodną z praktykami raportowania GRI w przypadku Indii jest przemysł sprzętu i oprogramowania (z poziomem zrównoważoności wynoszącym 94,02%), a w Brazylii przemysł papierniczy(z wynikiem wiarygodności 87,97%). W Rosji jest to przemysł petrochemiczny i gazowy (60,84%), podczas gdy w Chinach przemysł samochodowy i transportowy (71,06%), natomiast w RPA sprzedaż detaliczna (62,84%).

Słowa kluczowe

sustainability reporting GRI indicators BRICS emerging economies

raportowanie praktyk zrównoważonego rozwoju wskaźniki GRI wschodzące gospodarki

Wydawca

Lublin University of Technology

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2018

Tom

Vol. 13, nr 2

Strony

17--25

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 55 poz., tab.

Twórcy

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. A., HILL W. Y., ROBERTS C. B., 1998, Corporate Social Reporting Practices in Western Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behavior?, in: The British Accounting Review, vol. 30, no. 1, p. 1-21.
2. AHMAD N. N. N., SULAIMAN M., SISWANTORO D., 2003, Corporate SocialResponsibility Disclosure in Malaysia: An Analysis of Annual Reports of KLSE Listed Companies, in: International Journal of Economics, Management and Accounting.
3. AMALDOSS M. X., MANOHAR H. L., 2013, Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility – A Case of CSR Communication in Emerging Economies, in: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental, vol. 20, p. 65-80.
4. AREVALO, J. A. AND ARAVIND, D., 2011, Corporate Social Responsibility Practices In India: Approach, Drivers, and Barriers, in: Corporate Governance, 11 (4), pp. 399-414.
5. BAJPAI N., SACHS J. D., 2011, India’s Decade of Development: Looking Back at the Last 10 Years and Looking Forward to the Next 20, in: Working Paper Series, no. 3, p. 1-31, http://globalcenters.columbia.edu/files/cgc/pictures/Indias_Decade_of_Development_II_CGCSA_working_paper_series_July201 1.pdf (10.11.2016).
6. BANSAL P., 2002, The Corporate Challenges of Sustainable Development, in: Academy of Management Executive, vol.16, no. 2, 122-131.
7. BASKIN J, 2006, Corporate Responsibility in Emerging Markets, in: Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 24, p. 29-47.
8. BEBBINGTON J., GRAY R., OWEN D., 1999, Seeing the Wood for the Trees: Taking the Pulse of Social and Environmental Accounting, in: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, p.47-52.
9. BLOWFIELD M., FRYNAS J.G., 2005, Editorial Setting New Agendas: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Developing World, in: International Affairs, vol. 81, p. 499-513.
10. BROWN N., DEEGAN C, 1998, The public disclosure of environmental performance information – adual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory, in: Accounting and Business Research, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 21-41.
11. CHAPMAN R., MILNE M.J., 2003, The Triple Bottom Line: How New Zealand Companies Measure up, Corporate Environmental Strategy, in: International Journal for Sustainable Business, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 2-37.
12. CHAPPLE W., MOON J., 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia – A Seven country study of CSR web site reporting, in: Business & Society, vol. 44, no. 4, p. 415-441.
13. CHAUDRI V. WANG J., 2007, Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on the Internet: A case study of the top 100 Information Technology companies in India, in: Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 232-248.
14. CHICHILNISKY G., 1996, An Axiomatic Approach to Sustainable Development, in: Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13, p. 231-257.
15. DAIZY, DAS N., 2014, Sustainability Reporting Framework: Comparative Analysis of Global Reporting Initiatives and Dow Jones Sustainability Index, in: International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, vol. 3 no.1, p. 55-66.
16. DEEGAN C., 2002, Introduction: The Legitimising Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures – A Theoretical Foundation, in: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 no. 3, p. 282-311.
17. DURIAU V.J., REGER R.K., PFARRER M.D., 2007, A Content Analysis of the Content Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research Themes, Data Sources, and Methodological Refinements, in: Organizational Research Methods, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 5-34.
18. DYLLICK T, HOCKERTS K., 2002, Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability, in: Bus. Strat. Env., vol. 11, p. 130-141.
19. ECCLES R.G., KRZUS M.P., One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy, John Wiley & Sons 2010.
20. ELKINGTON J., Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21stCentury Business, Capstone 1999.
21. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011, http://ww w.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/co m/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en. pdf (29.01.2017).
22. FIASCHI D., GIULIANI E., NIERI F., 2015, BRIC Companies Seeking Legitimacy through Corporate Social Responsibility, in: SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2559110 (2.02.2017).
23. GARCIA-JOHNSON R., 2000, Exporting Environmentalism U.S.MultinationalChemical Corporations in Brazil and Mexico, The MIT Press.
24. GIMENEZ C., SIERRA V., RODON J., 2012, Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line, in: International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 140, no. 1, p. 149- 159.
25. GRI, 2006, https://www.globalreporting.org/resource library/G3-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf (25.08.2016).
26. GRI, 2009, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Sustainability-Report-2009-2010.pdf (30.03.2017).
27. GRI, 2011, https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/India-produces-most-complete-sustainability-reports.aspx (8.10.2016).
28. GRI, 2012, https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/Brazil-and-India-stock-up-on-sustainability.aspx (29.01.2017).
29. GRI, 2013, https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/GRI-Among-the-most-popular-CSR-instruments.asp x (30.01.2017).
30. GRIESSE M.A.S, 2007, The Geographic, Political, and Economic Context for Corporate Social Responsibility in Brazil, in: Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 73, p. 21-37.
31. HEDBERG C.J., MALMBORG F.V., 2003, The Global Reporting Initiative and Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Swedish Companies, in: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 153-164.
32. INTOSAI-WGEA, 2013, Sustainability Reporting: Concepts, Frameworks and the Role of Supreme Audit Institutions, http://www.environmentalauditing.org (22.02.2017).
33. IOANNOU I.A, SERAFEIM G.B., 2012, What drives corporate social performance the role of nationlevel institutions, in: Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 43, no9, p. 834- 864.
34. KOLK A., 2011, Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs, in: Journal of World Business, vol. 45, no.4, p. 367-374.
35. KRAJNC D., GLAVIC P., 2005, How to Compare Companies on Relevant Dimensions of Sustainability, in: Ecological Economics, vol. 55, p. 551-563.
36. LEHMAN G., 1999, Disclosing new worlds: a role for social and environmental accounting and auditing, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 217-241.
37. LOZANO R., 2008, Envisioning Sustainability Three-Dimensionally, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 16, p. 1838-1846.
38. MITCHELL C.G., HILL T, 2009, Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting and the Impact of Internal Environmental Policy in South Africa, in: Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt, vol. 16, p. 48-60.
39. MORHARDT J. E., BAIRD S., FREEMAN K., 2002, Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria, in: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 215-233.
40. MULIA P., BEHURA A. K., KAR S., 2017, Corporate Environmental Responsibility for a Sustainable Future, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 12, no 2, p. 69-77.
41. MURTHY V, 2008, Corporate Social Disclosure Practices of Top Software Firms in India, in:Global Business Review, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 173-188.
42. NEUA D., WARSAMEB W., PEDWELLC K., 1998, Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 265-282.
43. PREUSS L., BARKEMEYER R., 2011, CSR priorities of emerging economy firms: is Russia a different shape of BRIC?, in: Corporate Governance, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 371-385.
44. PRIETO M.C., LUND P.T., CHAN A., MURO A, BHUSHAN C, 2006, Critical Perspectiveson CSR and Development: What We Know, What We Don’t and What We Need to Know, in:International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 5, p. 977-987.
45. QUICK R., 2008, Voluntary sustainability reporting practices in Germany: a study on reporting quality, in: Portuguese Journal of Accounting and Management, vol. 5, p. 7-35.
46. RATANAJONGKOL S., DAVEY H., LOW M., 2006, Corporate Social Reporting in Thailand: The News is All Good and Increasing, in: Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 67-83.
47. RAUFFLET E., 2008, Creating the Context for Corporate Responsibility, in: Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 30, p. 95-106.
48. ROBERTS D.H., KOEPLIN J.P., 2007, Sustainability Reporting Practices In Portugal: Greenwashing or Triple Bottom Line, in: International Business & Economics Research Journal, vol. 6, no. 9, p. 29-40.
49. SAHAY A., 2004, Environmental Reporting by Indian Corporations, in: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 12-22.
50. SCHALTEGGER S., BECKMANN M., HANSEN E.G., 2013. Transdisciplinarity in Corporate Sustainability: Mapping the Field, in: Business Strategy Environment, Vol. 22, p. 219-229.
51. STAVINS R.N., WAGNER A.F., WAGNER G., 2003, Interpreting Sustainability in Economic Terms: Dynamic Efficiency Plus Inter-generational Equity, in: Economics Letters, vol. 79, no. 3, p. 339-343.
52. SUGGETT D., GOODSIR B., 2002, Triple bottom line measurement and reporting in Australia: Making it tangible. Melbourne, Allen Consulting Group.
53. WADDOCK S., 2007, On Ceres, the GRI and Corporation 20/20, in: The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 26, p. 38-42.
54. YADAVA R.N., SINHA B., 2016, Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies, in: Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 138, no. 3, p. 549-558.
55. ZWETSLOOT G. I. J. M., MARREWIJK M. N. A. V., 2004, From Quality to Sustainability, in: Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 55, p. 79-82.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-eafe8b89-939a-4b8d-8ed4-708dd166337b