Sustainability Reporting as a Consequence of Environmental Orientation: A Comparison of Sustainability Reporting by German Emerging Davids and Greening Goliaths

Q2 Business, Management and Accounting Social and Environmental Accountability Journal Pub Date : 2020-10-09 DOI:10.1080/0969160X.2020.1830424
Philipp Hummel
{"title":"Sustainability Reporting as a Consequence of Environmental Orientation: A Comparison of Sustainability Reporting by German Emerging Davids and Greening Goliaths","authors":"Philipp Hummel","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2020.1830424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Various studies investigate the design of corporate sustainability reporting in light of institutional theory. Whereas most of this literature examines the external factors that influence sustainability reporting, few studies focus on the internal drivers of sustainability reporting, especially the role of environmental orientation. This paper attempts to address this research gap by comparing companies with differences regarding environmental orientation. Therefore it distinguishes between companies that prioritise sustainability as business goals (Emerging Davids) and companies that use sustainability goals supplementary to their core business goals (Greening Goliaths). The paper finds differences in the sustainability reporting guidelines used by Emerging Davids and Greening Goliaths. Greening Goliaths are more likely to report according to the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative than Emerging Davids are. Thereby the study leads to the assumption that Greening Goliaths react more strongly to institutional pressures in terms of sustainability reporting than Emerging Davids do. This paper applies institutional theory in the context of environmental orientation and provides first insights into different institutional pressures within this field. While institutional pressures strongly influence the sustainability reporting of Greening Goliaths, they have less impact on the sustainability reporting of Emerging Davids.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0969160X.2020.1830424","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2020.1830424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Various studies investigate the design of corporate sustainability reporting in light of institutional theory. Whereas most of this literature examines the external factors that influence sustainability reporting, few studies focus on the internal drivers of sustainability reporting, especially the role of environmental orientation. This paper attempts to address this research gap by comparing companies with differences regarding environmental orientation. Therefore it distinguishes between companies that prioritise sustainability as business goals (Emerging Davids) and companies that use sustainability goals supplementary to their core business goals (Greening Goliaths). The paper finds differences in the sustainability reporting guidelines used by Emerging Davids and Greening Goliaths. Greening Goliaths are more likely to report according to the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative than Emerging Davids are. Thereby the study leads to the assumption that Greening Goliaths react more strongly to institutional pressures in terms of sustainability reporting than Emerging Davids do. This paper applies institutional theory in the context of environmental orientation and provides first insights into different institutional pressures within this field. While institutional pressures strongly influence the sustainability reporting of Greening Goliaths, they have less impact on the sustainability reporting of Emerging Davids.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
环境导向下的可持续发展报告:德国新兴大卫与绿色巨人的可持续发展报告比较
各种研究从制度理论的角度探讨了企业可持续发展报告的设计。虽然大多数文献研究了影响可持续发展报告的外部因素,但很少有研究关注可持续发展报告的内部驱动因素,特别是环境导向的作用。本文试图通过比较在环境取向方面存在差异的公司来解决这一研究差距。因此,它区分了将可持续发展作为商业目标优先考虑的公司(新兴的大卫)和将可持续发展目标作为核心商业目标的补充的公司(绿化巨人)。本文发现新兴大卫和绿化巨人所使用的可持续发展报告指南存在差异。绿色巨人比新兴的大卫更有可能根据全球报告倡议的指导方针进行报告。因此,该研究得出的假设是,在可持续发展报告方面,绿色巨人对制度压力的反应比新兴的大卫更强烈。本文将制度理论应用于环境取向的背景下,并首次提供了该领域内不同制度压力的见解。制度压力对绿色巨人的可持续发展报告影响较大,而对新兴大卫的可持续发展报告影响较小。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal Business, Management and Accounting-Accounting
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Social and Environmental Accountability Journal (SEAJ) is the official Journal of The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. It is a predominantly refereed Journal committed to the creation of a new academic literature in the broad field of social, environmental and sustainable development accounting, accountability, reporting and auditing. The Journal provides a forum for a wide range of different forms of academic and academic-related communications whose aim is to balance honesty and scholarly rigour with directness, clarity, policy-relevance and novelty. SEAJ welcomes all contributions that fulfil the criteria of the journal, including empirical papers, review papers and essays, manuscripts reporting or proposing engagement, commentaries and polemics, and reviews of articles or books. A key feature of SEAJ is that papers are shorter than the word length typically anticipated in academic journals in the social sciences. A clearer breakdown of the proposed word length for each type of paper in SEAJ can be found here.
期刊最新文献
Cultural Circularities that Limit Diversity: Emancipating Voices Finding Our Voices – Exploring Diversity, Inclusion and Accounting by the Marginalised and Managed Diverse Queer Performance of Gay and Cis Men Accountants from the Perspective of Tokenism Moving Beyond the External Face of Accountability: Constructing Accountability for Sustainability from WithinFrostenson, M., & Johnstone, L. (2023). Moving beyond the external face of accountability: Constructing accountability for sustainability from within. Sustainability Accounting, Management an Is There No Sin Down South of the Equator? Brazilian Auditors’ Perception of the Gendered and Racialized Dynamics in Audit Firms
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1