Doi 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review

Dominik Dienes Remmer Sassen Jasmin Fischer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dominik Dienes Remmer Sassen Jasmin Fischer , (2016),"What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic
review", Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050
Downloaded on: 05 April 2016, At: 21:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 39 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"The trend of integrated reporting practice in South Africa: ceremonial or substantive?", Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. -
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:52 05 April 2016 (PT)
(2016),"The value relevance of assured environmental disclosure. The Italian experience.", Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. -
(2016),"Contributing barriers to corporate social and environmental responsibility practices in a developing country: A
stakeholder perspective", Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. -
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:235887 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review
1. Introduction
In the wake of a changed awareness, sustainability concerns have become highly relevant to
society (Burrit and Schaltegger 2010) and are therefore also increasingly becoming a part of
management decisions (Windolph et al. 2014), accounting practice (Gray 2010; Schaltegger
and Burrit 2006) and reporting practice (Guidry and Patten 2010; Herzig and Schaltegger
2006) both in corporations and public sector entities (Adams 2013; Cebrin et al. 2013). The
aim of sustainability (performance) management is, firstly, to link environmental and social
management with business and competitive strategy management (Schaltegger and Wagner
2006a) and, secondly, the integration of environmental and social information with economic
business information and sustainability reporting (Mook 2006; Schaltegger and Wagner
2006b). Thus, sustainability activities follow a strategic inside-out approach of performance
measurement and management as well as an outside-in approach in order to adapt to external
sustainability requirements (Herzig and Schaltegger 2011) or fulfil legitimacy requirements
(Lodhia and Jacobs 2013; Bent 2006). Many organisations already voluntarily publish a
growing amount of sustainability information to meet the increased interest of their
shareholders as well as their internal and external stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, employees,
capital providers, state) (Ebinger et al. 2006; Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). Addressing the
specific information needs of these stakeholders requires involving them in the reporting
process (Adams and McNicholas 2007), for instance, in regard to issues concerning
employees, the environment or corporate philanthropy (Kolk 2003). In this respect, key
performance indicators (KPIs) that are suggested for use by standardised guidelines for
sustainability reporting such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (GRI 2013; Thurm
2006) are gaining growing momentum (Vormedal and Ruud 2009). These KPIs are
increasingly being used in decision making, strategic planning and performance management
including risk management (Adams and Frost 2008). They should be summarized in a
separate sustainability report that ideally is to be audited prior to delivery to stakeholders
(Adams 2004), whether such delivery is paper-based or digitally through the corporate
website (Adams and Frost 2006; Maijala and Pohjola 2006).
The demand for information by capital markets shows that especially sustainable investors
consider both financial and non-financial information in their investment decisions (Arnold et
1
al. 2012). Drivers of this demand can be corporate factors (e.g., size or industry grouping) or
general contextual factors (e.g., economic, political or social context) (Adams 2002), whereas
the fundamental drivers of sustainability reporting are considered to be the maximization of
shareholder wealth, the maintenance of organizational legitimacy and the management of
risks to corporate reputation (Adams and Whelan 2009). Especially the corporate drivers have
changed in recent years and will continue to be subject to further changes in the future. For
instance, because of the transition from sustainability to integrated reporting (IIRC 2013;
Lodhia 2015).
Research on sustainability reporting has gained increasing importance, and the first reviews
have been conducted to systematise this research field. Some of these studies have focused on
special topics related to sustainability reporting (Klovien and Speziale 2014; Prez 2015) or
on a specific country (Branco and Delgado 2011; Guan and Noronha 2013), while others have
taken a more general approach (Burritt and Schaltegger 2010; Hahn and Khnen 2013). A few
of these reviews have analysed studies that investigated not only sustainability reports but
different types of sustainability-related reporting (e.g., by taking only social and/or
environmental issues into account). Reporting practice has changed since the 1970s (Fifka
2012; Hahn and Khnen 2013). In some cases, traditional financial reporting has been
complemented by social reports (e.g., Cormier and Gordon 2001) or since the 1980s by
environmental reports (e.g., Clarkson et al. 2008; Cormier et al. 2005). In the 1990s the focus
has shifted to more comprehensive corporate social responsibility reports or sustainability
reports. All these types of reports are to some extent sustainability-related. The investigation
of various types of sustainability-related reporting in a single systematic review bears the risk
of misinterpreting the results. To avoid this problem, we focus only on studies that include
comprehensive sustainability reporting. One prominent concept to operationalise
sustainability is Elkingtons (1997) triple bottom line (TBL). This concept refers to three
sustainability dimensions (economic, environmental and social). So does the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), which was established in 2000 and is the most frequently used
standard worldwide.
Against this background, we provide an overview of the current state of research in the area of
sustainability reporting by organising our systematic review of the literature around the
following research question: What are the drivers of sustainability reporting that are identified
in empirical research? We followed a twofold approach. First, we systematised the research
on sustainability reporting conducted over the last 16 years (20002015), with the aim of
2
structuring this field. Our intention was to provide a systematic review of todays research
landscape of sustainability reporting. In contrast to other studies, we have omitted studies that
include only a single or just two sustainability dimensions (e.g., environmental and/or social)
in order to consider only those studies that have looked at comprehensive sustainability
reporting. To the best of our knowledge, our systematic review is the first of its kind to have
such a clear focus on sustainability reporting. By excluding studies that investigate non-
comprehensive sustainability-related reporting (e.g., social and/or environmental accounting
and/or reporting), we ensure that the field of sustainability reporting under consideration is up
to date. Our broad analysis of recent research has resulted in a synopsis of a total of 316
studies, 48 of which address the determinants of sustainability reporting. Although we have
applied stricter criteria for inclusion than previous reviews of this kind, we have nevertheless
investigated a higher number of relevant primary studies (e.g., Guan and Noronha [2013]
investigated 202 papers or Hahn and Khnen [2013] 178).
In a second step, we aimed to derive more comprehensive statements on the basis of those
studies that have investigated determinants of sustainability reporting. This qualitative type of
systematic review is able to produce results that can claim more general validity extending
beyond the limited perspective of the primary studies considered (e.g., beyond certain
companies, specific countries or different periods of time). The objective of these studies is to
identify the characteristics that explain why organisations publish specific information on
sustainability. We examined these studies for the determinants that influence the reporting
behaviour. We then summarised the results of the primary studies and related them to one
another. Applying a qualitative approach, we intend to demonstrate and discuss the broadness
of the approaches used in literature. This will help to derive more comprehensive statements
beyond the results of each of the 48 primary studies considered and reveal areas where further
research is needed to address inconsistencies in the results of these studies.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, we present the methodological
approach of systematic review, which we applied to locate, select and evaluate the relevant
studies. This is followed by an analysis and synthesis of the results. Finally, we provide a
discussion and implications.
3
2. Methodology: Systematic Review
2.1 Fundamental terminology
Before we begin with our systematic review, it is necessary to define the concepts of sustain-
ability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The European Commission, for instance,
defined CSR as the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society [] to integrate
social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business opera-
tions and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders (European Commission,
2011: 6). With respect to sustainability reporting, the Commission stated recently that one
possibility of demonstrating CSR is to disclose sustainability information by combining
long-term profitability with social justice and environmental protection (European Commis-
sion 2014: 3). This thinking on CSR is directly related to the concept of sustainability.
Generally, sustainability is based on the definition of the World Commission on Environment

and Development, which emphasises intra- and intergenerational justice. Accordingly, com-
panies can promote sustainable development if they meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission
on Environment and Development 1987: 54). In order to operationalise this objective, corpo-
rations should consider their economic, environmental and social impacts on society in gen-
eral and on stakeholders in particular (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). While Elkington (1997)
established this as the triple bottom line approach (TBL), there have been discussions about
including further dimensions such as time (Lozano and Huisingh 2011) or corporate govern-
ance (environmental, social and governance [ESG]) (Murphy and McGrath 2013), which are
all related to the concept of sustainability. As a result of convergence, the concepts CSR and
sustainability are considered consistent concepts, even in terms of reporting requirements
(e.g., Hahn and Khnen 2013).
2.2 Underlying research question and methodology
The first objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of
research on sustainability reporting that goes beyond previous research. We have identified
six studies that have performed methodologically rigorous systematic and literature reviews of
sustainability reporting (see section 3). Of course, there are several other kinds of reviews,
such as literature overviews, that have been conducted as part of relevant empirical studies
4
(e.g., Clarkson et al. 2008; Cormier and Gordon 2001; Cormier et al. 2005), but none of these
reviews are based on a systematic review. Furthermore, there are some systematic reviews
that focus on reporting types that are related to sustainability reporting. For example, Lodhia
and Hess (2014) examined the current literature on sustainability accounting and reporting in
a single industry (mining) that has been published in one journal (Journal of Cleaner
Production). Parker (2005, 2011, 2014) gives an impressive account of the research in the
field of social and environmental accounting by exposing the characteristics of the
methodological approaches in four top journals. This research is obviously related to
sustainability reporting, but the focus is on accounting and not on reporting, on the one hand,
and on the social and/or environmental dimension and not on a broad conception of
sustainability, on the other. Furthermore, Fifka (2012, 2013) has published two
comprehensive and well-known studies that we have not included in our review as they focus
on responsibility reporting as well as social and/or environmental reporting. Fifka (2013)
reviews empirical research on corporate responsibility reporting reaching back to the 1970s
and examines whether there are differences in the methodological approaches of researchers
from different regions and hence in the results they arrive at. Fifka (2012) traces the
chronological development and characteristics of empirical research on social and
environmental reporting over the last 40 years.
Against this background, we relate our research to the six studies identified that performed
methodologically rigorous systematic and literature reviews of sustainability reporting (see
section 3) and that were part of the search results according to the criteria of our
methodological approach (see sections 2.32.5). Some of these studies have focused on
special aspects of sustainability reporting or sustainability reporting in a specific country,
while other studies have adopted a more general approach. In their review of 117 papers
published between January and August 2014, Klovien and Speziale (2014) studied
sustainability reporting as a challenge for performance measurement. Prez (2015) analysed
corporate reputation as an outcome of CSR reporting on the basis of 77 papers published
between January 1992 and April 2014. Two other studies focused their reviews on specific
countries. Branco and Delgado (2011) explored the role of Portuguese academics in CSR
(disclosure) research in reference to 29 articles published between 1998 and 2008. Guan and
Noronha (2013) investigated CSR reporting research in Chinese academia, using 202
documents published between 1998 and 2010 as their database. They found that much of the
CSR literature in China is of a conceptual, descriptive or argumentative nature. Burritt and
5
Schaltegger (2010: 829) applied a more general approach but limited their reviewed to a
selection of prominent work only, in order to discuss the current development of
sustainability accounting research, the identification of critical and managerial paths, and to
assess of the future of sustainability accounting and reporting. Hahn and Khnen (2013)
investigated contemporary empirical and conceptual research from 1999 onward. By looking
at a more recent time span, their review, in contrast to Fifka (2012, 2013), captures
developments that are less likely to be the product of major changes in the corporate and
societal environment. Hahn and Khnen (2013: 5) provided a review of 178 articles published
between 1999 and 2011 in order to identify what determinants of sustainability reporting are
examined in the literature and to identify (in)consistencies, gaps, and opportunities for future
research. They classified these studies along the lines of the adoption, extent and quality of
sustainability reporting. Hahn and Khnen (2013) refer to sustainability-related reporting and
include different types of reports (e.g., social reports, environmental reports, corporate
(social) responsibility reports, corporate citizenship reports, sustainability reports). This
approach bears the risk of misinterpreting the results on sustainability reporting systematised
in their review.
Although there are six reviews that address sustainability reporting as mentioned above
there remains a research gap in this field. In particular, there is no study that exclusively
analyses papers that focus on comprehensive sustainability reporting. All previous systematic
reviews have also included more limited sustainability-related reporting such as social or
environmental reporting. To close this gap, we first provide a comprehensive overview of the
current state of research on sustainability reporting that is not influenced by social and
environmental reporting in order to answer the question of what research methods have been
used in previous studies, which conclusions have been drawn and what impact these studies
have had. Prior literature reviews show that a considerable proportion of such papers have
examined factors determining sustainability reporting. On the basis of these reviews, we
identified the respective research on drivers of sustainability reporting and looked for further
specifications by means of a systematic literature review.
According to Denyer and Tranfield (2009: 671) a systematic review is a specific

methodology that locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contributions, analyses and
synthesises data, and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear
conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known. It is important to mention that a
6
(qualitative) systematic review is different from the traditional (narrative) literature review
(Khan et al. 2003). It is a research project in its own right that pursues a specific research
question by secondary analysis of existing studies (Denyer and Tranfield 2009).
Methodologically, a systematic review can be further characterised as a type of content
analysis that can observe qualitative and quantitative issues alike (Brewerton and Millward
2001). The kind of results a systematic review can be expected to produce is sound and robust
evidence that can be applied to different contexts. At the same time, it can identify knowledge
gaps or inconsistent findings that indicate a specific need for future research (Denyer and
Tranfield 2009).
Systematic review applies a search methodology that makes use of an iterative and
incremental procedure in which relevant articles were searched, checked and reviewed for
relevance until the whole review is completed (Choong 2013: 4176). Denyer and Trenfield
(2009) offer five basic steps, which are similar to those used in content analysis and which we
have adopted accordingly:
(1) Research question: The first step was to define the research question as discussed above.
(2) Material collection: In a second step the material was collected. This required the
selection of databases and definition of search criteria (see 2.3).
(3) Selection and evaluation: The evaluation of the relevant papers followed structural
categories that allowed the identification of relevant themes and interpretation of findings. In
order to perform a comprehensive search to gather the most relevant articles on sustainability
reporting, we did not exclude any keywords, journals or research disciplines from our search a
priori. The decision to include or exclude studies was made upon screening the articles
abstracts (see 2.4).
(4) Descriptive analysis and synthesis: Delivering valid results requires a discussion of formal
aspects (section 3) with regard to the selected and evaluated material. The aim of this analysis
is to arrange the individual results of the respective articles into consistent parts by describing
how each relates to the other. Therefore, a set of information for each article (e.g., general
details such as author, title, type of study or context) was noted.
(5) Results: In order to complete the systematic review, we provide a discussion of the
findings that yields a description of what is known and unknown about the questions
7
addressed in the systematic review (see section 4). Additionally, a discussion of the
limitations of this study and future areas of research is necessary (see section 5).
2.3 Selection of databases and definition of search criteria
In order to identify and cover a wide range of research so as to ensure valid results, we
performed a comprehensive database analysis drawing on several databases. For this purpose,
we identified four major databases that include management-related journals: EBSCO
Business Source Complete (nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed journals in the management field),
Emerald Insight (approximately 300 management journals), ECONIS (more than 1,700
leading international economic journals), and Web of Science (more than 17,000 journals in
various research fields). On the one hand, this procedure ensures a wide selection because
Web of Science is the most comprehensive database in the field. On the other hand, we can be
certain to have identified the relevant journals of the discipline because of using EBSCO
Business Source Complete and ECONIS.
Furthermore, it was necessary to make sure that the relevant sustainability-oriented journals
were included in the abovementioned databases. In order to ensure this, we tested the
databases by using the ranking of sustainability management journals issued by the German
Academic Association for Business Research in 2015. This association has more than 2,200
members (experienced researchers) who work in business research. All of these members are
involved in ranking the major business journals worldwide. The ranking is divided into 22
sub-rankings for different research areas (e.g., sustainability management). The sub-ranking
of sustainability management journals includes 31 international journals that publish research
in the field of sustainability management (see Table 2 in the appendix). The databases used
cover all 31 peer-reviewed journals. By relying on this ranking, we are quite confident that we
have captured almost all relevant empirical studies on topics related to sustainability
reporting. The ranking can further be considered to be current as it was published in 2015.
Since including another ranking system would not have enhanced our database substantially,
we refrained from doing so for reasons of research economy.
The systematic review of the existing research was conducted by using keywords derived
from prior research to cover the research field as comprehensively as possible (Hahn and
Khnen 2013). In practice, both sustainability reports and the research on sustainability
8
reporting regularly use various specific terms to characterise the respective reports. A detailed
search using the following keywords was executed accordingly: corporate social
responsibility report*, Global Reporting Initiative report*, sustainable development
report*, sustainability report*, triple bottom line report* as well as the respective
abbreviations CSR report*, GRI report* or TBL report*. We also conducted a search
with the related keywords disclosure instead of report*, which stands for report as well
as for reports or reporting, with the objective of covering an even broader scope. The
search contained 32 keywords.
2.4 Screening process and search results
For the screening process, we defined screening criteria (see 2.3) and performed a search by
title because it is not likely that a study on sustainability reporting would not use any of the
terms used for screening in its title. The overall search in the four databases, using the
abovementioned keywords, resulted in 1,665 articles. The databases include journals, book
chapters and similar sources. In line with previous systematic reviews (Seuring and Mller
2008; Stechemesser and Guenther 2012; Hahn and Khnen 2013; Kolk et al. 2014), we
excluded book reviews, editorial notes and comments from our sample. We also eliminated
duplicates, which were certain to occur as a result of consulting several databases. To make
sure that we would capture all relevant papers published up to 2014, we performed our search
in mid-2015. Thus, in April 2015 the latest search resulted in a basic population of 516
articles. Each paper was screened with the objective of including only papers relevant with
respect to sustainability reporting.
Generally, the existing studies can be classified according to the sustainability dimensions
considered (environmental, economic and social topics). According to Elkington (1994), the
use of all three dimensions is described as the TBL approach (see 2.1). While more recent
research generally follows this threefold differentiation and thus illuminates all aspects of
sustainability accordingly, older studies are limited to only one of the two non-financial
dimensions. Articles were therefore excluded if they fail to address all three dimensions of
sustainability reporting. In this vein, especially older studies that focus exclusively on social
or environmental reporting were excluded. Studies dealing with integrated reporting were
omitted as well. Compared to sustainability reporting, the intention of integrated reporting is
9
much broaderIt is not just a reporting tool but rather an instrument in support of a holistic
approach to management decisions (integrated thinking). We have therefore excluded studies
with a too narrow focus (e.g., Fifka 2012; Fifka 2013) as well as studies that are devoted to
reporting that is too comprehensive for the purpose of our review (e.g., Frias-Aceituno et al.
2014). Furthermore, some of the excluded studies have a focus on non-financial reporting and
make only marginal mention of sustainability concerns (e.g., Cohen et al. 2012). We included
a study only if the publication date was later than 2000, the year of the publication of the first
GRI sustainability guidelines. This results in a period of 16 investigated publication years
(20002015) and a total of 316 (=n) articles that we identified as essential for inclusion in the
following systematic review. Fig. 1 shows the process of selection and evaluation of the
relevant articles.
Fig. 1 Process of selection and evaluation of relevant articles
10
2.5 Limitations and accuracy of the method
Without doubt, the applied research process and methodology are not without limitations.
Denyer and Trenfield (2009) suggest that systematic reviews have to follow four principles to
succeed. This requires that they have to be tested for their transparency, inclusivity,
explanatory power and heuristic nature.
Transparency is established by providing a detailed description of selecting databases,

keywords and screening criteria. It is additionally supported by ensuring objectivity (Saunders
et al. 2012). For this reason, we performed our systematic review by relying on a structured
process. Although we used four databases to minimise the risk of excluding relevant journals,
the respective selection of databases as well as the concentration on international articles

written in English can be seen as a limitation. However, we followed the recommendation of
Wallace and Wray (2006) to use a quality rating of journals. Thus, we applied the German
Academic Association for Business Researchs ranking of sustainability management journals
to ensure that all relevant sustainability reporting studies were included in the selected
databases. Basing our review on high-impact, peer-reviewed journals should therefore ensure
validity (Podsakoff et al. 2005). Furthermore, English is widely used in management,
accounting and reporting contexts due to its dominance in science so that it is highly
improbable that our focus on articles published in English will have led us to omit crucial
results (Hahn and Khnen 2013). By considering a time horizon spanning 16 years, we are
confident to have covered the relevant sustainability reporting studies relating to all three
sustainability or CSR dimensions that have been conducted since the publication of the GRI
guidelines. Although we reduced the risk of omitting relevant studies by using similar
keywords to the ones employed in prior studies (Hahn and Khnen 2013), expanding the
search by adding other keywords could lead to a broader sample of studies.
Inclusivity describes the fact that we analysed the located articles carefully with the objective
of arriving at a reliable selection of articles within the scope of our research question (Boaz
and Ashby 2003). This was to be accomplished by defining the search criteria such that any
researcher applying the criteria to the same raw data would achieve the same results
(Saunders et al. 2012). Accordingly each of the three researchers involved in the project
analysed the field separately in order to ensure intersubjective results (Denyer and Tranfield
2009). This procedure provided a safeguard against problems arising from uncertainty about
the categorisation of the studies and yielded a mostly consistent categorisation. Despite the
11
fact that other researchers might come to divergent results, we refrained from expanding the
research team by involving additional researchers given the time-consuming nature of the
process and the time constraints of the project.
The explanatory power of descriptive information from individual studies can be tapped by
extracting this information and organising it according to a (new) structure (Hammersley
2004). The interpretive and explanatory syntheses in this systematic review therefore reaches
beyond a descriptive reporting of evidence and can be seen as conceptual innovation and
reinterpretation (Campbell et al. 2003) while attempting to preserve the content of the original
study. In this sense, our systematic review brings the results from individual studies together
to make a whole that should be more than the sum of the parts (Denyer and Tranfield 2009)
and is directly linked to generalisation while taking possible loss of information into account.
Although our extensive search using multiple databases and search criteria covers the research
field comprehensively, our findings cannot be transferred to findings other than the genuine
research results (Saunders et al. 2012).
Finally, the last principle describes that the output produced by a systematic review can be
expected to be of a heuristic nature. A heuristic rule may help in solving a problem, but is
not guaranteed to provide a detailed solution of a specific problem (Denyer and Tranfield
2009). Similar to the principle of explanatory power, our findings are likely to suggest
guidelines, rules or recommendations and not detailed solutions. In this sense, the findings
can serve to develop knowledge that managers can apply in designing solutions to the
problems in their field (Denyer and Tranfield 2009).
3. Descriptive analysis
In the first step, the bibliographic data of each paper were noted. This involved (1) the
author(s), (2) year of publication, (3) title and (4) journal. We found a total of 316 studies that
are related to sustainability reporting. Fig. 2 shows that the number of studies has grown since
2000. Up until 2007, the number was always lower than 10 annually, whereas there was a
constant increase thereafter. Since 2011, the number has stabilised around 50. The low
number for 2015 refers to only the first month of this year.
12
Fig. 2 Year of publication
The next step was to classify the type of study by reading the abstracts of these papers. There
are different lines of research on sustainability reporting that show a wide range of different
research interests:
(1) Systematic and literature reviews: Literature reviews describe the current state of research,
whereas systematic reviews aim to gain a more generalisable perspective beyond the results of
single studies.
(2) Theoretical studies refer to critical analyses without any substantial empirical focus that
are mostly based on theories or are of a more normative nature or constitute legally oriented
studies.
(3) Analytical studies include mathematical models designed to optimise a given situation.
The results of these studies make it possible to develop recommendations to the regulator.
(4) Experimental studies under laboratory conditions use decision or interaction structures.
The test persons have to make decisions according to special set of predetermined rules. This
method seeks to observe the behaviour of test persons in a given situation.
13
(5) Survey and interview studies use questionnaires or (structured) interviews to gather data
about sustainability reporting practices or motivations.
(6) Diffusion analysis investigates the diffusion of sustainability reporting or the application
of standards (e.g., GRI Standards).
(7) Content analysis focuses on the content of sustainability reports. These studies often
address different industries and/or different countries.
(8) Case studies normally make observations or collect data for one single or a small number
of organisations. The sustainability reporting cases are often based on content analyses.
(9) Determinants studies are devoted to identifying determinants that explain why
organisations report on sustainability or factors that explain the extent and/or quality of
reporting. Some studies measure the extent of reporting by the quantity of information, others
the quality of reporting by disclosure scores (level of fulfilment). We aimed to identify these
studies by using the systematic review approach in order to answer our research question:
What are the drivers of sustainability reporting that are identified in empirical research?
(10) Effect studies mostly use regressions on the basis of externally available data in order to
investigate influence factors or effects on the issues in question. There are, for example, some
studies that analyse the effect of sustainability reporting (on the basis of disclosure scores) on
capital markets or capital costs.
(11) Other studies: There are some other studies that refer to sustainability reporting but do
not focus on issues of reporting specifically. These studies have different objects. For
example, some of them focus on assurance of sustainability reports, on sustainability
reporting standards or on the standard setter.
The characterisation of the sustainability reporting studies was not unambiguous in every
case. Some studies used a mixed-methods approach. For example, they performed a content
analysis and a supplementary survey. For the studies employing a mixed-methods approach,
we identified the dominant method by reviewing the abstracts.
Fig. 3 shows the frequency of the different types of studies according to our classification
system. Most of the studies that refer to sustainability reporting applied content analysis and
looked at different industries and/or countries (26.9%). Case studies (9.8%) are often also
14
based on content analysis, so that approximately 36.7% of all studies deal with the content of
sustainability reports. We found 48 determinant studies and 56 other studies (15.2% and
17.7% respectively). Furthermore, we encountered 38 theoretical studies (12.0%), 21 survey
and interview studies (6.3%), 18 effect and influence studies (5.7%), 13 diffusion analyses
(4.1%) and 6 systematic and literature reviews (1.9%). There are no analytical studies and
only one experimental study (0.3%).
Fig. 3 Frequency of types of studies
Of the journals that published the 48 determinants studies, five included more than just one
study: the Journal of Business Strategy and the Environment, the Journal of Corporate
Social Responsibility and the Environmental Management and the Pacific Accounting
Review published three studies, and the Journal of Business Ethics and the Management
International Review two studies each.
4. Analysis and synthesis
4.1 Systematisation of determinants
The further review considers the abovementioned 48 studies that analysed determinants of
sustainability reporting. In the next sections, we want to demonstrate and discuss the
broadness of the approaches used in the literature on determinants. Nevertheless, we had to
introduce further constraints. Studies were excluded if they examined determinants of
sustainability reporting but did not analyse CSR reporting as a dependent variable (Lu et al.
15
2015; Carnevale and Mazzuca 2014; Saleh et al. 2010). The dependent variables under
consideration could take the form of binary variables as well as different types of CSR
disclosure scores. We have indicated the method of measuring the variables of the primary
studies in Table 2 in the appendix. We found two different approaches to measuring the
dependent variables: (1) disclosure scores (e.g., GRI disclosure score, CSR disclosure score,
CSR disclosure (quality) score, sustainability disclosure score etc.) and (2) dummy variables
that indicate whether or not a sustainability report was issued to measure differences in the
determinants of sustainability reporting between reporting and non-reporting institutions. It is
obvious that all studies measure the construct of sustainability reporting differently. Thus, the
differences in the measurement are not surprising. Since we did not perform a meta-analysis
but a systematic review, we argue that the use of both measures is appropriate in order to
demonstrate and discuss the broadness of the approaches used in the literature. Whereas a
dummy variable differentiates reporting and non-reporting companies according to the
specific determinants of sustainability reporting, a high or low CSR disclosure score
differentiates organisations by their sustainability reporting determinants as well.
Some determinants have not been addressed more than once in previous studies. We only
included independent variables in the following analysis if there are more than three studies
that considered the respective independent variable. Therefore, variables that were measured
only in a single study, such as sustainability performance (Herbohn et al. 2014) or liquidity
(Ho and Taylor 2007), were not considered. A further study by Martnez-Ferrero et al. (2015)
examined other accounting-related determinants such as earnings management measured by
accruals, accounting conservatism or accruals quality. Another study investigated
sustainability reporting to some extent, but its main focus was on integrated reporting (Jensen
and Berg 2012). Furthermore, we defined firms as the object of examination. For this reason,
we excluded studies that deal with the sustainability reporting of public sector entities as well
(Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al. 2014; Kaur and Lodhia 2014; Joseph and Taplin 2011; Joseph et
al. 2011).
We made further restrictions in regard to determinants related to country and industry.

Although we identified several studies that examined country-specific determinants, we did
not include them in our analysis because each one measures this differently. Whereas
Wanderley et al. (2008) as well as Fortanier et al. (2011), for instance, examined country-of-
origin issues, Chen and Bouvain (2009) checked for an association between a country
16
belonging to the Global Compact alliance and CSR disclosure. Chapple and Moon (2005)
primarily analysed globalization issues. Farook et al. (2011) analysed topics related to
political and civil repression or the proportion of Muslims in a country, while Perez-Batres et
al. (2012) studied Mexico-related topics.
Specific industries are under high coercive as well as high normative pressure to maintain
their legitimacy (Young and Marais 2012). However, we also refrained from further
examining industry determinants because of the different approaches applied in measuring
this construct. Young and Marais (2012), for instance, applied an industry-classification
system, adopted from FTSE4Good. Whereas Christopher and Filipovic (2008) have a narrow
definition of sustainability-related industries (materials, industrials and energy sectors),
Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) have a wide definition (forestry, pulp and paper, mining, oil
and gas, utilities, construction and building materials, chemicals and synthetics or transport).
Finally, we examined 33 studies that deal with determinants of CSR disclosure (see
appendix). Fig. 5 shows the geographical spread of the countries analysed in these studies by
continent: fourteen cover Asian countries, twelve studies focus on European countries, eleven
on North America (only USA), four on Australia, and one study covers an African setting.
Nine studies address more than one continent. 22 studies analyse companies in every industry,
whereas five studies focus only on non-financial companies (Li et al. 2013a; Li et al. 2013b;
Prado-Lorenzo et al. 2012; Prado-Lorenzo et al. 2009; Lim et al. 2008). Furthermore, three
studies specifically examine banks in the USA (Jizi et al. 2014), Pakistan (Sharif and Rashid
2014) and Malaysia (Khan 2010), while one study investigates shipping companies mainly in
the USA and Europe (Drobetz et al. 2014) and another concentrates on companies in
manufacturing (Khasharmeh et al. 2010).
17
1
4
14
11
12
Asian countries European countries North America Australia North Africa
Fig. 4 Country distribution of studies included
We collected the independent variables considered in these studies. Although some control
variables show parallels to independent variables, we only observed independent variables
because the investigation of these variables was based on the hypotheses in the individual
studies. The seven determinants investigated were included in 33 of the studies referred to and
were operationalised by means of 33 variables (see Table 1).
Determinant Operationalisation
Firm size Number of employees
Market capitalisation
Balance sheet total
Number of operative segments
Number of geographic segments
Market value of equity
Profitability Earnings before interest and taxes margin (EBIT margin)
Earnings per share
Return on invested capital (ROIC)
Return on assets (ROA)
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on year end
Profit margin
Revenue
Capital structure Ratio of book value of debt over book value of equity
Total debt over total assets
Recently incorporated equity and debt
Media visibility Number of journal articles and magazines
Number of Handelsblatt newspaper ranking
18
Corporate governance Number of meetings of board of directors
structure Number of meetings of audit board
Number of board meetings
Number of audit committee meetings
Number of independent board members
Existence of sustainability board
Existence of governance board
CEO duality
Ownership structure Percentage of ordinary shares held by shareholders other than
the top 20
Percentage of shares held by largest shareholder
Free float
Foreign ownership
Presence of a physical person that exercises control
Firm age Number of years since the firms inception
Total: 33 variables
Table 1: Systematisation of the determinants
4.2 Firm size
Firm size is a determinant used in eighteen studies (Andrikopoulos et al. 2014, Drobetz et al.
2014; Shamil et al. 2014; Sharif and Rashid 2014; Li et al. 2013a; Li et al. 2013b; Wang et al.
2013; Bayoud et al. 2012a; Fernando and Pandey 2012; Vitezi et al. 2012; Rouf 2011;
Dilling 2010; Khan 2010; Khasharmeh et al. 2010; Morhardt 2010; Christopher and Filipovic
2008; Ghazali 2007; Ho and Taylor 2007). Andrikopoulos et al. (2014), Drobetz et al. (2014),
Shamil et al. (2014), Sharif and Rashid (2014), Wang et al. (2013), Bayoud et al (2012a),
Vitezi et al. (2012), Rouf (2011) as well as Khan (2010) and Khasharmeh et al. (2010) found
a positive association between firm size and CSR disclosure measured by balance sheet total.
Li et al. (2013b), Fernando and Pandey (2012), Christopher and Filipovic (2008) and Ghazali
(2007) found a significant influence of market capitalisation on CSR disclosure. With respect
to market value of equity, Ho and Taylor (2007) found a significant influence of such value
on CSR disclosure, while Morhardt (2010) could prove only a partial influence of revenues.
Dilling (2010) did not observe any effect of market share, market capitalisation, number of
segments and employees, and Rouf (2011) did not detect any influence of total sales on CSR
disclosure. Furthermore, there is no study indicating a negative effect of firm size. In all the
studies included, either a positive size effect on sustainability reporting behaviour was
measured or no effect at all. Therefore, the results indicate a positive tendency in the relation
between firm size and CSR disclosure.
19
Since none of the studies yielded results to the contrary, the results indicate that firm size is a
driver of sustainability reporting. These observations can be explained by larger companies
having stronger incentives to issue voluntary reports. Specifically, capital-market-oriented
companies are subject to public scrutiny and therefore must deal with concerns about their
reputation. This exposes large companies to greater pressure to publish sustainability
information to meet the informational needs of the stakeholders and the capital market.
Furthermore, the costs of reporting are lower for large companies since the expenses of
preparing a sustainability report tend to decrease as firm size increases (Ho and Taylor 2007).
Sustainability information tends to be withheld by smaller and medium-sized companies,

possibly due to their greater sensitivity to competition, which would explain their lower
reporting rate. It also must be considered that smaller companies might lack the capacity to
maintain their own sustainability departments and therefore cannot report in as much detail.
For smaller companies, sustainability reporting is rather uneconomical from a cost/benefit
point of view, and there are also concerns about releasing confidential data. In this context, it
would seem obvious to suggest that the scope of reporting under the GRI directives should be
adjusted for small and medium-sized companies (GRI 2014). Although a reduction of
reporting requirements might encourage them to provide sustainability reports, any reduction
in the scope of reporting would limit their comparability and usefulness to the addressees.
4.3 Profitability
Profitability is a determinant used to explain reporting behaviour in seventeen of the studies

considered (Andrikopoulos et al. 2014; Drobetz et al. 2014; Marquis and Qian 2014; Sharif
and Rashid 2014; Li et al. 2013a; Li et al. 2013b; Bayoud et al. 2012b; Fernando and Pandey
2012; Vitezi et al. 2012; Gamerschlag et al. 2011; Michelon 2011; Dilling 2010; Khan 2010;
Khasharmeh et al. 2010; Christopher and Filipovic 2008; Ghazali 2007; Ho and Taylor 2007).
Company performance is operationalised in different ways, and there is no agreement on how
to assess corporate success.
Sharif and Rashid (2014), Vitezi et al. (2012) and Khan (2010) found a positive relationship
between ROE and CSR disclosure, although Li et al. (2013b) observed a negative one. By
contrast, the results of Andrikopoulos et al. (2014) as well as Michelon (2011) show no
significant impact of ROE on CSR disclosure. In terms of ROA, Marquis and Qian (2014) and
20
Vitezi et al. (2012) observed a positive influence on CSR disclosure. By comparison,
Drobetz et al. (2014) found only a marginal association, while Ho and Taylor (2007) even
discovered a significant negative relationship between ROA and CSR disclosure. Li et al.
(2013b) measured a positive effect of return on year end on CSR disclosure. Bayoud et al.
(2012b) found a positive and significant relationship between CSR reporting and profitability
(ROA, ROE and revenues). Regarding ROA and ROE, Fernando and Pandey (2012) found no
influence on CSR reporting. For EBIT margin, Christopher and Filipovic (2008) found a
positive impact. Other variables such as earnings per share (Khasharmeh et al. 2010), ROIC
(Gamerschlag et al. 2011) or profit margin (Dilling 2010; Ghazali 2007) do not affect CSR
disclosure. An influence of profitability on CSR disclosure can therefore not be confirmed.
Theoretically, it is possible to derive a positive correlation between corporate success and

sustainability reporting since managers of profitable companies tend to publish additional
information to signal success in the capital market. Thus, there is proof that corporate success
is not achieved at the expense of stakeholder needs or the company as a whole (Ho and Taylor
2007). In addition, more profitable companies have greater financial resources to fund
voluntary reporting, so that they can be expected to be more willing to assume the additional
costs of producing and publishing a sustainability report (Gamerschlag et al. 2011).
Furthermore, the literature also contains arguments that sustainability reporting may lead to
greenwashing (Boiral 2013). Greenwashing refers to companies concealing corporate
practices that are questionable in terms of sustainability or showcasing routine operating
procedures as sustainability performance. Hence, companies with low social standards or a
reckless environmental policy might use their sustainability report as a marketing tool. In
summary, it appears that a companys profitability can affect the quantity of sustainability
reporting both positively and negatively.
4.4 Capital structure
Eight studies examined the connection between capital structure and sustainability reporting
(Andrikopoulos et al. 2014; Drobetz et al. 2014; Sharif and Rashid 2014; Li et al. 2013b;
Dilling 2011; Khasharmeh et al. 2010; Christopher and Filipovic 2008; Ho and Taylor 2007).
Andrikopoulos et al. (2014) as well as Sharif and Rashid (2014) showed that the ratio of book
value of debt over book value of equity correlates with CSR disclosure. For total debt over
balance sheet total, Li et al. (2013b) as well as Christopher and Filipovic (2008) found a
21
positive correlation with CSR disclosure. Ho and Taylor (2007) arrived at the opposite result:
they observed a significant negative relationship. Furthermore, Drobetz et al. (2014) found a
negative association, whereas the results of Dilling (2011) and Khasharmeh et al. (2010) show
that neither recently incorporated equity and debt nor the debt ratio are significant. These
inconsistent results make it impossible to draw any reliable conclusion as to the tendency of
the relationship.
Since few studies have examined the connection between reporting behaviour and capital
structure, it is evident that sustainability reporting not only concerns shareholders or capital
providers but that it also affects stakeholders without capital involvement. Furthermore,
companies with an increased capital demand should have a greater interest in providing
information on sustainability to capital providers.
4.5 Media visibility
Four studies analysed determinants of media visibility such as number of hits in journals and
magazines (Wang et al. 2013; Michelon 2011; Kent and Monem 2008) or hits in specific
newspaper rankings (Gamerschlag et al. 2011). All four found a positive correlation. Kent and
Monem (2008) and Wang et al. (2013) even determined a significant positive association
between CSR disclosure and media visibility. Therefore, the results suggest a positive relation
between media visibility and CSR disclosure.
This correlation can be explained by the affected companies facing larger justificatory
pressures, with firm size and media visibility correlating positively. Companies should be
interested in informing their stakeholders to avoid negative media reports and a loss of
reputation. The more sensitively the media reacts to the activities of a company, the more
susceptible that company is to public pressure. The preparation of a comprehensive
sustainability report might serve as preventive action. This might be an argument that speaks
for a positive correlation between media visibility and sustainability reporting (Gamerschlag
et al. 2011). This positive correlation could be explained by the aspect that the companies
subject to greater media visibility face a larger group of stakeholders that can exert pressure
and whose information needs they must meet. Companies that address a wide public through
various information channels can also be attributed a pioneering function, so that they almost
have an obligation to act in a sustainable manner.
22
4.6 Corporate governance structure
The connection between the design of corporate governance systems and a suitable reporting
behaviour of companies was examined in sixteen studies (Amran et al. 2014; Fernandez-
Feijoo et al. 2014; Shamil et al. 2014; Jizi et al. 2014; Herda et al. 2013; Sharif and Rashid
2014; Li et al. 2013b; Faisal et al. 2012; Michelon and Parbonetti 2012; Rouf 2011; Dilling
2010; Khan 2010; Prado-Lorenzo et al. 2009; Said et al. 2009; Kent and Monem 2008; Lim et
al. 2008). Various determinants were considered in this respect, such as independent board
members (Amran et al. 2014; Jizi et al. 2014; Shamil et al. 2014; Herda et al. 2013; Faisal et
al. 2012; Sharif and Rashid 2014; Li et al. 2013b; Rouf 2011; Khan 2010; Prado-Lorenzo et
al. 2009; Said et al. 2009; Kent and Monem 2008), size of the board of directors as measured
by the number of board members (Amran et al. 2014; Shamil et al. 2014; Jizi et al. 2014; Kent
and Monem 2008), number of board meetings (Kent and Monem 2008), number of women on
the board (Amran et al. 2014; Fernandez-Feijoo et al. 2014; Shamil et al. 2014, Khan 2010) or
CEO duality (Shamil et al. 2014; Jizi et al. 2014; Kent and Monem 2008; Said et al. 2009;
Lim et al. 2008).
Although a notable amount of studies shows increased research activities, they have yielded
only a few noteworthy results. While Jizi et al. (2014), Herda et al. (2013), Sharif and Rashid
(2014), Rouf (2011) as well as Khan (2010) found a positive relationship between CSR
disclosure and board independence, Amran et al. (2014), Shamil et al. (2014), Faisal et al.
(2012) or Said et al. (2009) could find no such correlation. Li et al. (2013b) even observed a
negative influence of board independence on CSR reporting. Furthermore, Shamil et al. 2014
as well as Jizi et al. (2014) also found a positive association between the number of board
members and CSR reporting, whereas Amran et al. (2014) did not observe any such influence.
With regard to CEO duality, Jizi et al. (2014) as well as Shamil et al. (2014) found a positive
correlation with CSR disclosure, while Lim et al. 2008 found a negative effect and Said et al.
(2009) could not detect any influence at all. Whereas Amran et al. (2014) as well as Khan
(2010) did not find any evidence for an effect of gender diversity on CSR reporting, Shamil et
al. (2014) even discovered a negative influence. Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) determined
that the level of CSR disclosure is higher in countries with a higher proportion of boards of
directors with at least three female members. Another possible aspect of board composition,
namely the presence of foreign nationals, was analysed by Sharif and Rashid (2014), but they
could not find any influence on CSR disclosure. Prado-Lorenzo et al. (2012) found a negative
effect of activist shareholder pressure on CSR disclosure. In this vein, the ratio of the number
23
of directors that represent active shareholders interests divided by the directors on the board
has a contradictory effect on CSR disclosure. Because of this negative impact, we can not
assume the existence of a positive association between corporate governance in terms of
board composition and CSR disclosure.
There were also analyses with respect to several committees. Usually, this involved analysing
the impact of the existence of a sustainability committee (Amran et al 2014; Michelon and
Parbonetti 2012; Dilling 2010; Kent and Monem 2008). Amran et al. (2014) as well as Kent
and Monem (2008) found a positive and significant association, while Michelon and
Parbonetti (2012) found only a positive relation between the existence of such a committee
and CSR disclosure. Dilling (2010) did not find any relation at all.
Furthermore, the impact of an audit committee on CSR disclosure was analysed with respect
to the following factors: the existence of such a committee per se (Said et al. 2009), the
number of members (Dilling 2010; Kent and Monem 2008), the presence of independent
members on the audit committee (Kent and Monem 2008) and the number of meetings
(Dilling 2010; Kent and Monem 2008). Although most variables did not show any relation to
CSR disclosure, the number of meetings of the audit committee (Kent and Monem 2008) as
well as the existence of such a committee (Said et al. 2009) are significantly positively
associated in one study. In summary, the fact that no negative relationships were measured
indicates a positive association between board composition as an indicator of corporate
governance and CSR disclosure as well as between the existence of sustainability or audit
committees and CSR disclosure.
The sustainable alignment of a company can only be successful if appropriate corporate

governance systems and sustainability management are implemented in the company at the
same time. In this respect, the competitive benefit that companies derive from their
sustainability initiatives can only be achieved if they are incorporated in the corporate
governance framework and reporting. In this context, the inconsistent effects that we observed
are not really surprising since it is not easy to predict, for instance, whether board size should
be expected to have a positive or a negative effect on CSR disclosure because both
possibilities are conceivable.
24
4.7 Ownership structure
The fact that there are twelve studies that take ownership structure into consideration attests to
a substantial research interest in this factor (Drobetz et al. 2014; Li et al. 2013a; Li et al.
2013b; Vitezi et al. 2012; Gamerschlag et al 2011; Khan 2010; Khasharmeh 2010; Prado-
Lorenzo et al. 2009; Said et al. 2009; Christopher and Filipovic 2008; Lim et al. 2008;
Ghazali 2007). Christopher and Filipovic (2008), Li et al. (2013b) or Said et al. (2009) found
a significant positive relationship between CSR disclosure and the percentage of ordinary
shares that are held by shareholders other than the top 20, the top 10 and the top 5
shareholders, respectively. By contrast, Ghazali (2007) did not observe any influence of
ownership concentration on CSR disclosure. Furthermore, Drobetz et al. (2014) as well as
Gamerschlag et al. (2011) showed a positive association for the percentage of shares held by
the largest shareholder and for the free float respectively, while Vitezi et al. (2012), Prado-
Lorenzo et al. (2009) or Said et al (2009) did not find such a relationship for foreign
ownership, the presence of financial institutions in the firms ownership structure or the
presence of a physical person that exercises control. With regard to foreign ownership, only
Khan (2010) observed a positive influence on CSR disclosure. Whereas Said et al. (2009) as
well as Ghazali (2007) found a positive association between government ownership and CSR
reporting, Li et al. (2013a), Li et al. (2013b) and Khasharmeh et al. (2010) observed no such
influence. In fact, we did not find any study that showed a negative impact. Therefore, the
results indicate that the association between ownership structure and CSR disclosure has a
positive tendency.
4.8 Firm age

Firm age measured by number of years since the firms inception was analysed in three
studies (Marquis and Qian 2014; Shamil et al. 2014; Bayoud et al. 2012a). Marquis and Qian
(2014) as well as Shamil et al. (2014) found a negative correlation of firm size on CSR
disclosure. By contrast, Bayoud et al. (2012a) observed a positive relationship. Because of
these inconsistent results, making a reliable statement on the tendency of the relationship is
impossible.
25
5. Discussion and implications
This paper has systematically presented the state of empirical research on sustainability
reporting and analysed drivers of sustainability reporting employing a qualitative approach.
We have intended to demonstrate and discuss the broadness of the approaches used in the
literature. A comprehensive search was performed by using 32 keywords in four common
databases. We have identified a sample of 516 studies related to sustainability reporting that
were published in English journals and investigated 316 articles in detail that were published
between 2000 and 2015. Our study covers a much larger sample and a longer investigation
period compared to prior studies such as Hahn and Khnen (2013), for instance, who analysed
only 178 studies of this kind. Our analysis also differs from previous research in that we apply
a comprehensive concept of sustainability reporting that considers the economic,

environmental and social dimension and not just sustainability-related reporting (e.g., social
and/or environmental reporting, integrated reporting etc.). The reporting behaviour of firms is
likely to change in response to the requirements of their corporate and societal environment.
An explanation for the observed increase in sustainability reporting could be that whereas
early environmental or social reporting was primarily a matter of companies strongly
committed to the idea of sustainability because of operating in a sustainability-related sector,
current sustainability reporting has become common practice for many more firms because
their competitors issue such reports as well or society expects firms to report on sustainability
performance regardless of their sector affiliation. In this context, our methodological approach
ensures that we have given a current overview of the research field of sustainability reporting
that has not been influenced by environmental and social reporting.
First, we have contributed an up-to-date overview of the research landscape in the field of
sustainability reporting that delivers interesting insights and recommendations for future
research. Our analysis of this research landscape has shown considerable growth in the
amount of studies over the past years. The most frequently used methodological approach has
been content analysis (85 studies), although there has also been an increasing interest in
research on the determinants of sustainability reporting (48 studies). In contrast to case
studies, theoretical studies, survey and interview studies, effect and influence studies,
diffusion analyses as well as systematic and literature reviews, there has been an extremely
small number of experimental (one) and analytical (none) studies. More research in these
methodological areas could deliver beneficial results. Analytical studies could include
26
mathematical models designed to optimise a given situation. In the context of sustainability
reporting, such models could be devised for the purpose of developing decision rules. For
example, such rules could outline the aspects of sustainability to be addressed in such a report
given certain secondary conditions. A research design of this kind could involve experimental
studies under laboratory conditions using specific decision or interaction structures. The test
persons would have to make reporting decisions according to a special set of predetermined
rules. This method seeks to observe the behaviour of test persons in a given situation. In the
context of sustainability reporting, it could be interesting to design an experiment that
investigates the decision behaviour of investors.
Second, we have focused on the determinants of sustainability reporting and contributed a

range of new results. Most of these studies were found for the continental regions Asia,
Europe and North America. Only four studies were found for Australia, one for Africa and
none for South America. Especially the last two continental regions have hardly been
investigated. It would therefore be interesting to focus on these regions.
We analysed seven determinants in detail (firm size, profitability, capital structure, media
visibility, corporate governance structure, ownership structure and firm age) that were
operationalised by 33 different variables (Table 1). Their relevance for sustainability reporting
has been examined (see also appendix). This has allowed us to expand the often limited focus
of the individual studies. The analysis and synthesis has summarised the results on
determinants of previous studies systematically and has provided an overview of factors that
determine the companies sustainability reporting. Some of our results confirm the findings of
prior systematic reviews. In accordance with Hahn and Khnen (2013), for instance, we
noticed a positive effect of company size and media visibility as well as inconsistent and
ambiguous findings regarding the effect of profitability and capital structure on sustainability
reporting. In this regard, we share the opinion of Hahn and Khnen (2013, p. 19) that the
frequency of research on economic and financial performance variables () is distorted by
personal interest of certain researchers. While we found an association between ownership
structure and sustainability reporting in general, Hahn and Khnen (2013) could confirm such
a relationship only for government and foreign ownership, whereas concentrated ownership
impedes sustainability reporting in their study. We have gone beyond Hahn and Khnen
(2013) by additionally focusing on corporate governance and firm age. However, these results
are ambiguous. While corporate governance seems to have an influence only on the existence
27
of audit or sustainability committees, board composition does not show a clear tendency in
this respect. It is impossible to make a reliable statement on the tendency of the relationship
because of the sparse and inconsistent results in regard to firm age.
It is apparent that companies only report on their sustainability activities if there is an

economic benefit derived from improved reputation, reduced capital costs or alleviated public
pressure. Therefore, it becomes clear that the selection of companies might already lead to
distorted results. For instance, the studies specifically consider stock-listed companies
because of the available data. This could lead to a bias towards large companies, so that it is
not easy to draw conclusions about the publication behaviour of smaller companies. Thus, it is
not surprising that firm size and media visibility have an influence on CSR disclosure as size
can be considered to be linked with media visibility (Hahn and Khnen 2013). Future research
should investigate smaller companies that are not or under lower media pressure.
Although there are some studies that analyse the determinants media visibility (4 studies) and
firm age (3 studies), these determinants are underrepresented. Thus, future studies could
improve the validity of results by focusing on these determinants. Furthermore, future
research should address determinants not considered in this study because of the little
attention paid to them in the primary studies sustainability performance or liquidity are
cases in point. Future research might expand on our findings concerning the use of different
operationalisations of the determinants. Regarding inconsistent results, further research on
determinants referring to new operationalisations as well as known ones could be used in
order to improve their resilience.
Beyond these potentially interesting aspects for future research, the findings of our systematic
review have further implications for firms, standard setters, policy makers and regulators. In
regard to firms, our significant results concerning firm size and media visibility confirm the
perception that sustainability reporting is quasi-mandatory for large firms, which are subject
to high media visibility because of their size. The positive influence of the existence of audit
and sustainability committees on sustainability reporting suggests that establishing such
committees improves sustainability reporting. Of course, this requires that these committees
put an emphasis on sustainability activities. For ownership structure, we cannot offer a
similarly clear-cut suggestion. The specific ownership structure could bias the likelihood of
publishing a sustainability report as well as the quality of such reporting and is thus a matter
of individual incentives. In order to promote sustainable development, policy makers and
28
regulators could think about making sustainability reporting mandatory because currently
only very large and media-visible firms prepare these reports on a voluntary basis. Here, the
question that policy makers face is whether they consider companies sustainability efforts to
be sufficient or deem further regulatory steps necessary. Our ambiguous results on corporate
governance raise the question whether policy makers could actually influence sustainability
reporting either directly or indirectly. As far as gender diversity is concerned, we
predominantly found no effect on sustainability reporting. However, since other studies have
come to the opposite conclusion that gender diversity does influence such reporting (Liao et
al. 2014; Rao et al. 2012; Barako and Brown 2008), it should be interesting to investigate the
impact of the most current EU regulation that proposes legislation with the aim of attaining a
40% objective of the under-represented sex in non-executive board-member positions in

publicly listed companies (European Commission 2015).
There are further implications of the results, especially in regard to the EU non-financial
reporting directive, the new GRI G4 sustainability guidelines or the International Integrated
Reporting Council (IIRC) framework. The EU directive obliges listed companies with an
average size of 500 employees to include a non-financial statement in their management
commentary by financial years after 31/12/2016. While standardised guidelines such as the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (GRI 2013) are gaining increasing momentum (Vormedal
and Ruud 2009), there have been recent activities to develop an integrated reporting (IIRC
2013) that also includes some degree of sustainability information as well (Simnett and
Huggins 2015). As discussed above, we did not include the more comprehensive integrated
reporting in the systematic review. So far, there have not been many studies on such
reporting, but future research should address its determinants and might adopt a similar
approach in analysing it as we have done here. Furthermore, it could be interesting to
investigate whether integrated reporting is able to close the gap between corporate financial
performance and corporate sustainability performance.
Beyond the methodological limitations of systematic reviews discussed above (chapter 2.5), a
quantitative meta-analysis could, of course, enhance the validity of our findings, but such an
approach would require more homogenous primary studies to yield valid findings. This
considered, the more qualitative systematic review seems to be the appropriate method to
demonstrate and discuss the broadness of the approaches in the literature. Against this
backdrop, this paper has provided an overview of the current research landscape in the field of
29
sustainability reporting, analysed determinants of sustainability reporting that are not
influenced by environmental and social reporting, and outlined future research opportunities
and implications for firms as well as standard setters and policy makers.
References
Adams, C. (2002), Internal Organisational Factors Influencing Corporate Social and Ethical
Reporting: Beyond Current Theorising, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223250.
Adams, C. (2004), The Ethical, Social and Environmental ReportingPerformance Portrayal
Gap, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731757.
Adams, C. (2013), Sustainability Reporting and Performance Management in Universities:
Challenges and Benefits, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 384392.
Adams, C. and Frost, G.R. (2006), Accessibility and Functionality of the Corporate Web
Site: Implications for Sustainability Reporting, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 275287.
Adams, C. and Frost, G.R. (2008), Integrating Sustainability Reporting into Management
Practices, Accounting Forum, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 288302.
Adams, C. and McNicholas, P. (2007), Making a Difference: Sustainability Reporting,
Accountability and Organisational Change, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Adams, C. and Whelan, G. (2009), Conceptualising Future Change in Corporate
Sustainability Reporting, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No.
1, pp. 118143.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S. (2014), The Influence of Governance Structure and
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Sustainability Reporting Quality,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 217235.
Andrikopoulos, A., Samitas, A., and Bekiaris, M. (2014), Corporate social responsibility
reporting in financial institutions: evidence from Euronext, Research in international
business and finance, Vol. 32, pp. 2735.
30
Arnold, M., Bassen, A. and Frank, R. (2012), Integrating Sustainability Reports into
Financial Statements: An Experimental Study, working paper, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2030891 (accessed 23 April 2015).
Barako, D.G.; Brown, A.M. (2008) Corporate Social Reporting and board representation:
evidence from the Kenyan banking sector, Journal of Management and Governance,
Vol. 12, pp. 309-324.
Bayoud, N.S., Kavanagh, M. and Slaughter, G. (2012a), Factors Influencing Levels of
Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure by Libyan Firms: A Mixed Study,
International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1329.
Bayoud, N.S., Kavanagh, M. and Slaughter, G. (2012b), An Empirical Study of the
Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Organizational

Performance: Evidence from Libya, International Journal of Management and
Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 6982.
Bent, D. (2006), Towards a Monetised Triple Bottom Line for an Alcohol Producer. Using
Stakeholder Dialogue to Negotiate a Licence to Operate by Constructing an Account
of Social Performance, in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.),
Sustainability Accounting and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 6182.
Boaz, A. and Ashby, D. (2003), Fit for Purpose? Assessing Research Quality for Evidence
Based Policy and Practice, working paper, available at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/cep/pubs/papers/ass
ets/wp11.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Boiral, O. (2013), Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI
reports, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp.10361071.
Branco, M.C. and Delgado, C. (2011), Research on corporate social responsibility and
disclosure in Portugal, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 202217.
Brewerton, P. and Millward, L. (Eds.) (2001), Organizational research methods. A guide for
students and researchers, Sage Publications, London.
Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2010), Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or
trend?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 829846.
Campbell, D., Craven, B. and Shrives, P. (2003), Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE
sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 558581.
31
Carnevale, C. and Mazzuca, M. (2014), Sustainability Reporting and Varieties of
Capitalism, Sustainable Development, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 361376.
Cebrin, G., Grace, M. and Humphris, D. (2013), Organisational learning towards
sustainability in higher education, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A Seven-
Country Study of CSR Web Site Reporting, Business and Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp.
415441.
Chen, S. and Bouvain, P. (2009), Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of
Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 299317.

Cho, C. Michelon, G., Patten, D.M. and Roberts, R.W. (2014), CSR report assurance in the
USA: An empirical investigation of determinants and effects, Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 130148.
Choong, K.K. (2013), Has this large number of performance measurement publications
contributed to its better understanding? A systematic review for research and
applications, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 14, pp. 4174
4197.
Christopher, T. and Filipovic, M. (2008), The extent and determinants of disclosure of
Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines: Australian evidence, The Journal of
Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 1740.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D. and Vasvari, F. P. (2008), Revisiting the Relation
Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure: An Empirical
Analysis, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 33 No. 4/5, pp. 303327.
Cohen, J., Holder-Webb, L., Nath, L. and Wood, D. (2012), Corporate Reporting of Non-
Financial Leading Indicators of Economic Performance and Sustainability, Accounting
horizons, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 6590.
Cormier, D. and Gordon, I. M. (2001), An Examination of Social and Environmental
Reporting Strategies, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 587616.
Cormier, D., Magnan, M. and Van Velthoven, B. (2005), Environmental Disclosure Quality
in Large German Companies: Economic Incentives, Public Pressures or Institutional
Conditions?, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 339.
32
Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Fras-Aceituno, J. and Martnez-Ferrero, J. (2014), The role of
media pressure on the disclosure of sustainability information by local governments,
Online Information Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 114135.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), Producing a systematic review, in Buchanan, D. and
Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 671689.
Dilling, P. (2010), Sustainability Reporting In A Global Context: What Are the
Characteristics of Corporations that Provide High Quality Sustainability Reports An
Empirical Analysis, International Business & Economic Research Journal, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 1930.
Drobetz, W., Merikas, A. and Merika, A. (2014), Corporate social responsibility disclosure:
the case of international shipping, Transportation research: an international journal,
Vol. 71, pp. 1844.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 130141.
Ebinger, F., Cahyandito, M. F., von Dettern, R. and Schlter, A. (2006), Just a Paper Tiger?
Exploration of Sustainability Reporting as a Corporate Communication Instrument, in
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and
Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 511532.
Elkington, J. (Ed.) (1997), Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business, Capstone, Oxford.
European Commission (2011), A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social
Responsibility, available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed
23 April 2015).
European Commission (2014), Position of the European Parliament, available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TC+P7-
TC1-COD-2013-0110+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN (accessed 23 April 2015).
European Commission (2015), Women on Boards: Commission proposes 40% objective,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/news/121114_en.htm
(accessed 16 December 2015).
33
Faisal, F., Tower, G. and Rusmin, R. (2012), Legitimising Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Throughout the World, Australian Accounting, Business and Finance
Farook, S., Hassan, M. and Lanis R. (2011), Determinants of corporate social responsibility
disclosure: The case of Islamic banks, Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business
Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 114141.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romerp, S. and Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014), Women on Boards: Do They
Affect Sustainability Reporting?, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 351364.
Fernando, A.A.J. and Pandey, I.M. (2012), Corporate social responsibility reporting: a
survey of listed Sri Lankan companies, Journal of International Business and

Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 172187.
Fifka, M.S. (2012), The development and state of research on social and environmental
reporting in global comparison, Journal fr Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 45
84.
Fifka, M.S. (2013), Corporate Responsibility Reporting and Its Determinants in Comparative
Perspective A Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-analysis, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 135.
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A. and Pinske, J. (2011), Harmonization in CSR Reporting: MNEs and
Global CSR Standards, Management International Review, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 665
696.
Frias-Aceituno, J., Rodrguez-Ariza, L. and Garcia-Snchez, I.M. (2014), Explantory factors
of integrated sustainability and financial reporting, Business strategy and the
environment, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5672.
Gamerschlag, R., Mller, K. and Verbeeten, F. (2011), Determinants of voluntary CSR
disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 4
No. 5, pp. 233262.
Ghazali, N.A.M. (2007), Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure:
some Malaysian evidence, Corporate Governance: The international journal of
business in society, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 251266.
Gray, R. (2010), A re-evaluation of social, environmental and sustainability accounting: An
exploration of an emerging trans-disciplinary field?, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1132.
34
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2013), G4 Sustainability Guidelines, available at:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-
and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2014), Ready to report? Introducing sustainability
reporting for SMEs, available at:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Ready-to-Report-SME-booklet-
online.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Guan, J. and Noronha, C. (2013), Corporate social responsibility reporting research in the
Chinese academia: a critical review, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.
3355.
Guidry, R.P. and Patten, D.M. (2010), Market reactions to the first time issuance of
corporate sustainability reports: Evidence that quality matters, Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3350.
Hahn, R. and Khnen, M. (2013), Determinants of Sustainability Reporting: A Review of
Results, Trends, Theory, and Opportunities in an Expanding Field of Research,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 59, pp. 521.
Hammersley, M. (2004), Some Questions About Evidence-Based Practice in Education, in
Thomas, G. and Pring, R. (Eds.), Evidence-Based Practice in Education, Open
University Press, Buckingham, pp. 133149.
Herbohn, K., Walker, J. and Loo, H.Y.M. (2014), Corporate Social Responsibility: The Link
Between Sustainability Disclosure and Sustainability Performance, ABACUS A
Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 422459.
Herda, D., Taylor, M. and Winterbotham, G. (2013), The Effect of Board Independence on
the Sustainability Reporting Practices of Large U.S. Firms, Issues in Social and
Environmental Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 3/4, pp. 2544.
Herzig, C. and Schaltegger, S. (2006), Corporate Sustainability Reporting. An Overview, in
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.) Sustainability Accounting and
Herzig, C. and Schaltegger, S. (2011), Corporate Sustainability Reporting, in Godemann, J.,
Michelsen, G. (Eds.), Sustainability Communication. Interdisciplinary Perspectives and
Theoretical Foundations, Springer, Berlin, pp. 151170.
35
Ho, L. and Taylor, M. (2007), An Empirical Analysis of Triple Bottom-Line Reporting and
Its Determinants: Evidence from the United States and Japan, Journal of International
Financial Management and Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 123150.
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013), The International <IR>
Framework, available at: http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-
08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Jensen, J.C., and Berg, N. (2012), Determinants of Traditional Sustainability Reporting
Versus Integrated Reporting. An Institutionalist Approach, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 299316.
Jizi, M., Salama, A., Dixon, R. and Stratling, R. (2014), Corporate Governance and
Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 4, pp. 601615.
Joseph, C. and Taplin, R. (2011), The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance
versus occurrence, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1931.
Joseph, C., Pilcher, R. and Taplin, R. (2011), Malaysian local government internet
sustainability reporting, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 26 No. 1/2, pp. 7593.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S. K. (2014), The state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement in
sustainability reporting in Australian local councils, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol.
26 No. 1/2, pp. 5474.
Kent, P. and Monem, R. (2008), What drives TBL reporting: Good Governance or Threat to
Legitimacy?, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 297309.
Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003), Five steps to conducting a systematic
review, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 96, pp. 118121.
Khan, H.-U.-Z. (2010), The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social
responsibility (CSR) reporting, International Journal of Law and Management, Vol.
52 No. 2, pp. 82109.
Khasharmeh, H. and Suwaidan, M.S. (2010), Social responsibility disclosure in corporate
annual reports: evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, International
Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 327
345.
Klovien, L. and Speziale, M.-T. (2014), Sustainability Reporting as a Challenge for
Performance Measurement: Literature Review, Economics and Business, Vol. 26,
pp. 4453.
36
Kolk, A. (2003), Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 279-291.
Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M. and Rufin, C. (2014), Reviewing a Decade of Research on the
Base/Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Concept, Business and society, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 338377.
Li, Q., Luo, W., Wang, Y. and Liansheng, W. (2013a), Firm performance, corporate
ownership, and corporate social responsibility disclosure in China, Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159173.
Li, Y., Zhang, J. and Foo, C.-T. (2013b), Towards a theory of social responsibility reporting:
Empirical analysis of 613 CSR reports by listed corporations in China, Chinese
Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 519534.

Liao, L.; Luo, L.; Tang, Q. (2014), Gender diversity, board independence, environmental
committee and greenhouse gas disclosure, The British Accounting Review, online first,
pp. 116.
Lim, Y.Z., Talha, M., Mohamed, J. and Sallehhuddin, A. (2008), Corporate social
responsibility disclosure and corporate governance in Malaysia, International Journal
of Behavioural Accounting and Finance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6789.
Lodhia, S. (2015), Exploring the Transition to Integrated Reporting Through a Practice Lens:
An Australian Customer Owned Bank Perspective, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 129 No. 3, pp. 585598.
Lodhia, S. and Hess, N. (2014), Sustainability accounting and reporting in the mining
industry: current literature and directions for future research, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 84, pp. 4350.
Lodhia, S. and Jacobs, K. (2013), The practice turn in environmental reporting: A study into
current practices in two Australian commonwealth departments, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 595-615.
Lozano, R. and Huisingh, D. (2011), Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 1-2, pp. 99107.
Lu, Y., Abeysekera, I. and Cortese, C. (2015), Corporate social responsibility reporting
quality, board characteristics and corporate social reputation: Evidence from China,
Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 95118.
Marquis, C. and Qian, C. (2014), Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China:
Symbol or Substance?, Organization Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 127148.
37
Martnez-Ferrero, J., Garcia-Sanchez, I. and Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. (2015), Effect of
Financial Reporting Quality on Sustainability Information Disclosure, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 4564.
Michelon, G. (2011), Sustainability Disclosure and Reputation: A Comparative Study,
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 7996.
Michelon, G. and Parbonetti, A. (2012), The effects of corporate governance on
sustainability disclosure, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp.
477509.
Maijala and Pohjola (2006), Web-Based Environmental Management Systems for SMEs.
Enhancing the Diffusion of Environmental Management in the Transportation Sector,
in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and

Mook, L. (2006), Integrating and Reporting an Organisations Economic, Social and
Environmental Performance. The Expanded Value Added Statement, in Schaltegger,
S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting,
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 281298.
Morhardt, E. (2010), Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the
Internet, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 436452.
Parker, L.D. (2005),"Social and environmental accountability research", Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842860.
Parker, L.D. (2011), Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research:
A coming of age, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 110.
Parker, L.D. (2014), Constructing a Research Field: A Reflection on the History of Social
and Environmental Accounting, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 8792.
Prez, A. (2015), Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1129.
Perez-Batres, L.A., Miller, V.V., Pisani, M.J., Henriques, I. and Renau-Sepulveda, J.A.
(2012), Why Do Firms Engage in National Sustainability Programs and Transparent
Sustainability Reporting? Evidence from Mexicos Clean Industry Program,
Management International Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 107136.
38
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G. and Podsakoff, N.P., (2005), The
influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s., Strategic Management
Prado-Lorenzo, J., Gallego-lvarez, I. and Mara Garca-Snchez, I. (2009), Stakeholder
engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure
effect, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 94107.
Prado-Lorenzo, J., Mara Garca-Snchez, I. and Gallego-lvarez, I. (2012), Effects of
Activist shareholding on corporate social responsibility reporting Practices: an empirical
study in Spain, Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative, Vol. 17, pp. 716.
Rao, K.K.; Tilt, C.A.; Lester, L.H. (2012), Corporate governance and environmental
reporting: an Australian study, Corporate Governance, Vol. 12, pp. 143163.
Rouf, A. (2011), The Corporate Social responsibility Disclosure: A Study of Listed
Companies in Bangladesh, Business Economics Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp.
1932.
Said, R., Zainuddin, Y.H. and Haron, H. (2009), The relationship between corporate social
responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public
listed companies, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 212226.
Saleh, M., Zulkifli, N. and Muhamad, R. (2010), Corporate social responsibility disclosure
and its relation on institutional ownership: Evidence from public listed companies in
Malaysia, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 591613.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (Eds.) (2012), Research methods for business
students, sixth ed., Pearson Education, New York.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2006), Corporate Sustainability Accounting. A Catchphrase
for Compliant Corporations or a Business Decision Support for Sustainability
Leaders?, in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.), Sustainability
Accounting and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 3760.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006a), Managing Sustainability Performance
Measurement and Reporting in an Integrated Manner. Sustainability Accounting as the
Link between the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard and Sustainability Reporting, in
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and
39
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006b), Integrative Management of Sustainability
Performance, Measurement and Reporting, International Journal of Accounting,
Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 3 No.1, pp. 1-19.
Seuring, S. and Mller, M. (2008), From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 16991710.
Shamil, M., Shaikh, J., Ho P.-L. and Krishnan, A. (2014), The influence of board
characteristics on sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence from Sri Lankan firms,
Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 7897.
Sharif, M. and Rashid, K. (2014), Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility
(CSR) reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan,

Quality & Quantity, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 25012521.
Simnett, R. (2012), Assurance of sustainability reports: Revision of ISAE 3000 and
associated research opportunities, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Simnett, R. and Huggins, A.L. (2015), Integrated reporting and assurance: Where can
research add value?, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 2953.
Stechemesser, K. and Guenther, E. (2012), Carbon accounting: a systematic literature
review, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 36, pp. 1738.
Thurm, R. (2006), Taking the GRI to Scale. Towards the Next Generation of Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines, in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.),
Sustainability Accounting and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp.325338.
Vitezi, N., Vuko, T. and Mrec, B. (2012), Does financial performance have an impact on
corporate sustainability and CSR disclosure: a case of Croatian companies, Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 5, pp.4855.
Vormedal, I. and Ruud, A. (2009), Sustainability reporting in Norway An assessment of
performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 207222.
Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (Eds.) (2006), Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates,
Sage Publications, London.
Wanderley, L.S.O., Lucian, R., Farache, F. and de Sousa Filho, J.M. (2008), CSR
Information Disclosure on the Web: A Context-Based Approach Analysing the
40
Influence of Country of Origin and Industry Sector, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
82 No. 2, pp. 369378.
Wang, J., Song, L. and Yao, S. (2013), The Determinants Of Corporate Social Responsibility
Disclosure: Evidence From China, The Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 29
No. 6, pp. 18331848.
Windolph, S.E., Schaltegger, S. and Herzig, C. (2014), Implementing corporate
sustainability: What drives the application of sustainability management tools in
Germany?, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 378404.
World Commission on Environment and Development (Ed.) (1987), Our common future,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Young, S. and Marais, M. (2012), A Multi-level Perspective of CSR Reporting: The
Implications of National Institutions and Industry Risk Characteristics, Corporate
Governance: An International Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 432450.
41
Appendix
1 Business & Society

2 Business and Society Review
3 Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ)
4 Business Ethics: A European Review
5 Business Strategy and the Environment
6 Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society
7 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
8 Ecological Economics
9 Energy Economics
10 Energy Policy
11 International Journal of Energy Sector Management
12 International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development

13 International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management
14 Journal of Business Ethics
15 Journal of Cleaner Production
16 Journal of Consumer Affairs
17 Journal of Consumer Policy
18 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
19 Journal of Environmental Management
20 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
21 Journal of Global Responsibility
22 Journal of Industrial Ecology
23 Journal of Macromarketing
24 Journal of World Business
25 Organization & Environment
26 Resource and Energy Economics
27 Social and Environmental Accountability Journal
28 Sustainability
29 Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
30 Sustainable Development
31 The Journal of Corporate Citizenship
Table 2: Journals related to sustainability management and ranked by the German Academic
Association for Business Research 2015
42
Year of Author(s) Country Variable(s) CSR- Results

publi- Sample Variable(s)
cation Investigation period
2014 Amran, Lee and 12 countries from Board characteristics (size, independence, Sustainabil- Positive effect of the existence of a
Devi Asia Pacific region gender, existence of CSR committee) ity reporting CSR committee to CSR reporting. No
113 companies quality influence of size, independence and
2010 gender proportion of a board of direc-
tors to CSR disclosure.
2014 Andrikopoulos, Several mainly Euro- Firm growth (market-to-book-value) CSR Disclo- Firm size is positively related to CSR
Samitas and pean countries (due to Firm size (balance sheet total) sure Index disclosure. Firm leverage is also posi-
Bekiaris sample in Euronext Firm leverage (ratio of book value of debt tively and significantly related to CSR
stock exchange) over book value of equity) disclosure. Profitability and firm
93 company websites Profitability [Return on Equity (ROE)] growth do not show any influence.
2009
2014 Drobetz, Mainly USA and Eu- Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR Disclo- Firm size, firm growth and ownership
Merikas, Merika rope Firm leverage (ratio of total liabilities over sure Index structure are positively related to CSR
and Tsionas 118 shipping compa- equity) disclosure. In contrast, firm leverage is
nies (firms listed in Firm growth (market-to-book ratio) negatively related to CSR disclosure.
NYSE, NASDAQ, Ownership structure (percentage of stakes ROA has only a marginal effect on
London Stock Ex- held by largest shareholder) CSR disclosure.
change and Oslo Profitability (ROA, ROE)
Stock Exchange)
2002-2010
2014 Fernandez- 22 countries mainly Board characteristics (at least three women CSR disclo- Countries with higher proportion of
Feijoo, Romero USA, Europe and on board of directors) sure boards of directors with at least three
and Ruiz-Blanco Australia women show a positive relation to
350 companies CSR disclosure.
2014 Marquis and China Profitability (ROA) Dummy var- Positive affiliation of profitability on
Qian 1.600 companies Firm age iable CSR reporting. Negative effect of firm
2006-2009 age on CSR reporting.
43
2014 Shamil, Shaikh, Sri Lanka Board characteristics (size, gender, inde- Dummy var- Positive association of board size and
Ho and Krish- 148 companies pendence) iable dual leadership as well as firm size and
nan 2012 Firm size (balance sheet total) firm growth to CSR reporting. Nega-
Firm growth (market value of shares/book tive affect of boards with female direc-
value of equity) tors as well as firm age to CSR report-
Firm age ing. No association between CSR dis-
closure and board independence.
2014 Jizi, Salama, USA Board independence CSR Disclo- Positive effect of independent direc-
Dixon and Strat- 107 US listed com- Board size sure Quality tors, board size and CEO duality on
ling mercial banks CEO duality Score CSR disclosure.
2009-2011
2013a Li, Luo, Wang China Profitability (return on year-end) CSR Disclo- Positive impact of profitability on CSR
and Wu 1.574 non-financial Ownership structure (state ownership) sure score disclosure. No affiliation of state own-
listed firms ership on CSR reporting.
2008
2014 Sharif and Ra- Pakistan Board characteristics (non-executive board CSR Report- Board independence, firm size, profit-
shid 22 commercial banks directors, foreign nationals) ing items / ability as well as firm leverage have a
2005-2010 Firm size (balance sheet total) score positive influence on CSR reporting.
Profitability (ROE) Foreign nationals in the board do not
Firm leverage (debt to equity ratio) have any affiliation on CSR reporting.
2013 Herda, Taylor USA Board independence Dummy var- Board independence is positively asso-
and Winterbo- 500 companies iable ciated with CSR disclosure.
tham 2008
2013b Li, Zhang and China Ownership structure [ownership concentra- CSR Disclo- Positive influence of firm size, owner-
Foo 613 companies tion (top 5 owners), state ownership sure Score ship concentration, firm leverage on
2009-2010 Firm size (market capitalization) CSR disclosure. Negative effect of
Firm leverage (total debt/balance sheet total) profitability and board independence
Profitability (ROE) on CSR reporting. No influence of
Board independence state ownership on CSR disclosure.
2013 Wang, Song and China Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR Disclo- Firm size and media visibility are posi-
Yao 800 companies Media visibility sure Score tively associated with CSR disclosure.
2008
44
2012a Bayoud, Ka- Lybia Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR Disclo- Positive relation between CSR disclo-
vanagh and 135 companies Firm age sure Score sure and firm size as well as firm age.
Slaughter 2007-2009
2012b Bayoud, Ka- Lybia Profitability (ROA, ROE, revenues) CSR Disclo- Positive effect of profitability on CSR
vanagh and 135 companies sure Score disclosure.
Slaughter 2007-2009
2012 Faisal, Tower 24 countries mainly in Assurance Statement Sustainabil- The existence of an assurance state-
and Rumin Europe Jurisdictional business system ity Disclo- ment is also positively related to the
125 companies Board characteristics (independence) sure Score extent of CSR disclosure. Further, an
2009 association between CSR disclosure
and type of business jurisdiction can
be achieved. No association between
board independence and CSR disclo-
sure.
2012 Fernando and Sri Lanka Firm size (market capitalization) Dummy var- Positive relationship between firm size
Pandey 232 listed companies Profitability (ROA, ROE) iable and CSR reporting. No relation be-
2010 tween profitability and CSR disclo-
sure.
2012 Michelon and USA and Europe CEO duality CSR Disclo- Positive association between commu-
Parbonetti 114 companies Board characteristics (CEO duality, inde- sure Score nity influentials and CSR disclosure.
2003 pendence and influential members) No influence of CEO duality and
Existence of CSR committee board independence on CSR disclo-
sure.
2012 Prado-Lorenzo, Spain Board characteristics (ratio of number of CSR Disclo- Activist shareholder pressure has a
Garca-Snchez 99 non-financial firms directors that represent active shareholders sure Score contradictory effect on CSR disclo-
and Gallego- 2009 interests divided by the directors on the sure.
lvarez board)
2012 Vitezi, Vuko Croatia Profitability [Return on Assets (ROA), ROE] Dummy var- Profitability (ROA, ROE) and firm
and Mrec 42 companies Firm size (Balance sheet total) iable size have an influence of the possibil-
2002-2010 Ownership structure (foreign ownership) ity of publishing a CSR report.
45
2011 Gamerschlag, Germany Media visibility (number of hits in Han- Dummy var- Although media visibility and owner-
Mller and Ver- 130 companies delsblatt newspaper ranking) iable ship structure is positively associated,
beeten 2005-2008 Profitability [return on invested capital profitability does not affect CSR dis-
(ROIC)] closure. Firm size also affects CSR
Ownership structure (free float) disclosure.
Stakeholder (US stakeholder)
2011 Michelon Mainly USA and Eu- Existence of a sustainability committee CSR Disclo- Positive relationship between CSR
rope Profitability (ROE) sure Score disclosure and the existence of a sus-
114 companies Financial performance (stock price return) tainability committee as well as media
2003 Media visibility visibility. No significant relation be-
Stakeholder engagement tween CSR disclosure and financial
performance. Further, ROE and stock
price return are not significant.
2011 Rouf Bangladesh Board independence Total social Positive effect of board independence
93 companies Firm size (balance sheet total and total sales) responsibility and firm size measured by balance
2007 disclosure sheet total in CSR reporting. No effect
score of firm size measured by total sales on
CSR disclosure.
2010 Dilling 25 countries (mainly Size (market capitalization, operating and Dummy Var- The variables were not associated with
Europe, North Ameri- geographic segments, employee numbers) iable G3 reporting.
ca and Australia) Profitability (profit margin
124 companies Firm growth (5 year growth sales)
2007 Capital structure
Corporate governance [Audit committee and
board of directors (number of members and
meetings), existence of sustainability and
governance committee]
2010 Khan Malaysia Corporate governance (independence, gen- CSR report- Positive effect of board independence
30 banks der) ing index and foreign shareholders on CSR re-
2007-2008 Firm size (balance sheet total) porting. No influence of gender to
Profitability (ROE) CSR disclosure. Firm size and profita-
Foreign ownership bility are also positive related to CSR
reporting.
46
2010 Khasharmeh and 12 countries of the Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR Disclo- Firm size is positively related to CSR
Suwaidan Gulf Cooperation Profitability (earnings per share) sure Score disclosure. Profitability, capital struc-
Council Capital structure (debt ratio) ture and ownership structure do not
60 manufacturing Ownership structure (state ownership) show an affiliation to CSR reporting.
companies
2006
2010 Morhardt Mainly USA Firm size (revenue) CSR Disclo- CSR Disclosure is at least partially
750 companies sure Score influenced by firm size.
2008 (based on
Pacific Sus-
tainability
Index)
2009 Prado-Lorenzo, Spain Board independence CSR Disclo- The three independent variables do not
Gallego-Alvarez 99 nonfinancial com- Ownership (presence of financial institutions sure Index affect CSR disclosure. Positive effect
and Garcia- panies in the firms ownership structure, presence of of the presence of the dominant share-
Sanchez a physical person that exercises control) holders on the adoption of the GRI
format.
2009 Said, Zainuddin Malaysia Board characteristics (independence, CEO CSR disclo- Positive effect of government owner-
and Haron 150 companies duality) sure index ship, ownership concentration and
2006 Ownership structure [government and for- existence of an audit committee on
eign ownership, concentration (ten largest CSR disclosure. No effect of board
stakeholders)] independence, CEO duality or foreign
Existence of an audit committee ownership in CSR reporting.
2008 Christopher and Australia Ownership structure (percentage of ordinary CSR Disclo- Ownership dispersion, firm leverage
Filipovic 450 companies shares which were held by other than the top sure Score and firm size are significantly and
2004 20 shareholders) (according to positively related to CSR disclosure.
Firm leverage (debt to balance sheet total) GRI) BFA and profitability are positively
Big Four Audit (BFA) associated with CSR disclosure.
Firm size (market capitalization)
Profitability (EBIT margin)
47
2008 Kent and Mo- Australia Media visibility (number of adverse publicity Dummy var- Positive effect of media visibility,
nem 72 companies articles) iable number of meetings of the audit com-
2003 Audit committee characteristics (independent mittee, existence of a sustainability
members and number of meetings and mem- committee on CSR reporting.
ber in committee)
Existence of sustainability committee
Board characteristics (independence of board
members, CEO model, number of meetings
and member in board)
2008 Lim, Talha, Malaysia Corporate governance (CEO duality) CSR disclo- State ownership is positively and sig-
Mohamed and 743 non-financial Ownership structure (state ownership) sure score nificantly related to CSR reporting.
Sallehhuddin companies Corporate governance is negatively
2003 related to CSR disclosure.
2007 Ghazali Malaysia Ownership structure [concentration (shares Positive effect of firm size and gov-
87 companies held by 10 largest shareholders), government ernment ownership on CSR reporting.
2001 ownership] No influence of profitability an owner-
Firm size (market capitalization) ship concentration on CSR disclosure.
Profitability (profit margin)
2007 Ho and Taylor USA and Japan Firm size (market value of equity) CSR Disclo- Firm size is positively and significant-
100 companies (50 Firm leverage (ratio of total debt to total sure Index ly related to CSR disclosure. Profita-
each country) equity) bility and liquidity are negatively and
2003 Profitability (ROA) significantly related to CSR disclosure.
Liquidity (ratio of current assets to current Firm leverage is also negative, but not
liabilities) significant.
Table 3: Studies that analyse determinants of CSR disclosure
48

Doi 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Doi 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal

What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2.1 Fundamental terminology

Generally, sustainability is based on the definition of the World Commission on Environment

2.2 Underlying research question and methodology

According to Denyer and Tranfield (2009: 671) a systematic review is a specific

2.3 Selection of databases and definition of search criteria

2.4 Screening process and search results

Fig. 1 Process of selection and evaluation of relevant articles

Transparency is established by providing a detailed description of selecting databases,

the respective selection of databases as well as the concentration on international articles

Fig. 2 Year of publication

Fig. 3 Frequency of types of studies

4. Analysis and synthesis

4.1 Systematisation of determinants

We made further restrictions in regard to determinants related to country and industry.

Asian countries European countries North America Australia North Africa

Fig. 4 Country distribution of studies included

4.2 Firm size

Sustainability information tends to be withheld by smaller and medium-sized companies,

Profitability is a determinant used to explain reporting behaviour in seventeen of the studies

Theoretically, it is possible to derive a positive correlation between corporate success and

4.4 Capital structure

information on sustainability to capital providers.

4.5 Media visibility

The sustainable alignment of a company can only be successful if appropriate corporate

4.8 Firm age

a comprehensive concept of sustainability reporting that considers the economic,

Second, we have focused on the determinants of sustainability reporting and contributed a

It is apparent that companies only report on their sustainability activities if there is an

40% objective of the under-represented sex in non-executive board-member positions in

Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Organizational

of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 299317.

survey of listed Sri Lankan companies, Journal of International Business and

Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector,

Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 519534.

in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and

(CSR) reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan,

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1 Business & Society

12 International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development

Year of Author(s) Country Variable(s) CSR- Results

Table 3: Studies that analyse determinants of CSR disclosure

You might also like