The purpose of this paper is to study what are the characteristics that make firms less or more prone to greenwashing. We collect data from sustainability disclosures of the S&P top 100 companies, to investigate the determinants of greenwashing. We use content analysis to measure the level of reporting of the companies. We define the “greenwashing” variable as the difference between what the company says it does in terms of commitment to sustainability, and what the company actually does as evaluated by external parties (Bloomberg ESG scores). Our results show that companies in environmentally sensitive industries greenwash less than their counterparts in other industries, as well as companies following the GRI guidelines. Companies that issue a sustainability report and assure it greenwash less than those that do not do it. Contrary to our intuition, companies in industries with close proximity and high visibility greenwash more than their counterparts. A limitation of the paper is the inclusion in the sample of data from one country. Our findings have implications for policy-makers, particularly in Europe, where some European states have already regulated on green issues reporting and lately on blue issues. It might be interesting to consider both the industry effect and the relevance of reporting mechanisms when developing regulation and policies in order to improve the quality of sustainability reporting. We contribute to literature by proposing a new quantitative measure to assess greenwashing practices, to better understand the effect of industry and reporting mechanisms on greenwashing.
Purpose
This paper uses institutional theory to analyze the structure of the sustainability assurance market (SAM) at a global level. The purpose of this paper is to determine if regional differences affect industry specialization in this market.
Design/methodology/approach
Using a sample of 3,657 sustainability reports (SRs) with assurance statements, the authors study the global and regional specialization of assurers by breaking down the sample into three main regions. The authors approach industry specialization using previous methodologies applied to the financial audit market, and explain differences statistically significant among regions.
Findings
The authors find different industry specialists depending on the geographical region in which the audit firm is located. The Europe, Middle Eastern and Africa region has the highest number of industry specialists and the Asia-Pacific region the lowest. Notwithstanding the global participation of Big 4 firms, assurance specialization depends on the country where the company is located.
Research limitations/implications
The paper reveals the need to include regional differences in the analysis of the SAM at the international level.
Practical implications
The study shows an in-depth study of the SAM that may be useful for assurers, to decide strategic actions in industries and countries and for regulators, to control the risk of monopolistic/oligopolistic markets.
Originality/value
The study presents a novel approach to the analysis of the assurance market for SRs, by studying it from the supply point of view. The analysis provides a measure of specialization that may help understand the structure of the SAM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.