The failure of transparency as self-regulation

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
L. Vigneau, C. Adams
{"title":"The failure of transparency as self-regulation","authors":"L. Vigneau, C. Adams","doi":"10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to examine the existence of a transparency gap between voluntary external sustainability reporting and internal sustainability performance of an organisation arising from the operationalisation of transparency as an instrumental tool.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study combined an analysis of a firm’s sustainability report (secondary data) with a qualitative case study data (primary data comprising interviews, meetings and internal documents) to understand how the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting guidelines are applied in practice.\n\n\nFindings\nBy comparing what is reported with a range of primary case study data, this study finds evidence of transparency gaps, particularly in terms of the quality of measurement of sustainability performance, the materiality of issues covered and the completeness of the report. This study posits that voluntary disclosures following the GRI guidelines (transparency technique) shape the external expression of acceptable corporate behaviour (transparency norm) that is nevertheless at odds with actual behaviour or performance.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe findings indicate the importance of mandatory sustainability reporting requirements that facilitate accountability to all key stakeholders and that are externally assured and enforced. Such requirements might take the form of standards that put boundaries on judgement and address material sustainable development impacts and that are accompanied by implementation guidance. Non-financial assurance practices must be developed to cover adherence to reporting principles and processes.\n\n\nSocial implications\nTransparency gaps that result from voluntary disclosure guidelines or standards being used to imply a transparency norm may undermine accountability for the impacts of the organisation and hinder alignment of business models and corporate strategies with sustainable development.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe paper contributes to a theoretical understanding of transparency as a form of self-regulation and has implications for the further development of sustainability reporting standards.\n","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the existence of a transparency gap between voluntary external sustainability reporting and internal sustainability performance of an organisation arising from the operationalisation of transparency as an instrumental tool. Design/methodology/approach This study combined an analysis of a firm’s sustainability report (secondary data) with a qualitative case study data (primary data comprising interviews, meetings and internal documents) to understand how the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting guidelines are applied in practice. Findings By comparing what is reported with a range of primary case study data, this study finds evidence of transparency gaps, particularly in terms of the quality of measurement of sustainability performance, the materiality of issues covered and the completeness of the report. This study posits that voluntary disclosures following the GRI guidelines (transparency technique) shape the external expression of acceptable corporate behaviour (transparency norm) that is nevertheless at odds with actual behaviour or performance. Practical implications The findings indicate the importance of mandatory sustainability reporting requirements that facilitate accountability to all key stakeholders and that are externally assured and enforced. Such requirements might take the form of standards that put boundaries on judgement and address material sustainable development impacts and that are accompanied by implementation guidance. Non-financial assurance practices must be developed to cover adherence to reporting principles and processes. Social implications Transparency gaps that result from voluntary disclosure guidelines or standards being used to imply a transparency norm may undermine accountability for the impacts of the organisation and hinder alignment of business models and corporate strategies with sustainable development. Originality/value The paper contributes to a theoretical understanding of transparency as a form of self-regulation and has implications for the further development of sustainability reporting standards.
透明度作为自律的失败
目的本文旨在研究一个组织的自愿外部可持续性报告和内部可持续性绩效之间是否存在透明度差距,这是由于透明度作为一种工具工具的运作。设计/方法/方法本研究将对公司可持续性报告(二级数据)的分析与定性案例研究数据(主要数据包括访谈、会议和内部文件)相结合,以了解全球报告倡议(GRI)可持续性报告指南在实践中的应用。发现通过将报告的内容与一系列主要案例研究数据进行比较,本研究发现了透明度差距的证据,特别是在衡量可持续性绩效的质量、所涵盖问题的重要性和报告的完整性方面。本研究假设,遵循GRI准则(透明度技术)的自愿披露塑造了可接受的企业行为(透明度规范)的外部表达,但与实际行为或绩效不一致。实际含义调查结果表明了强制性可持续性报告要求的重要性,这些要求有助于对所有关键利益相关者进行问责,并得到外部保证和执行。这些要求可以采取标准的形式,为判断设定界限,解决实质性的可持续发展影响,并辅以实施指导。必须制定非财务保证做法,以涵盖对报告原则和流程的遵守。社会影响由于自愿披露准则或标准被用来暗示透明度规范而导致的透明度差距可能会破坏对组织影响的问责制,并阻碍商业模式和公司战略与可持续发展的一致性。原创性/价值本文有助于从理论上理解透明度作为一种自我监管形式,并对可持续性报告标准的进一步发展具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信