Australian corporate political donation disclosures

Abstract

Purpose A primary tool for managing the democratic risks posed by political donations is disclosure. In Australia, corporate donations are disclosed in government databases. Despite the potential accountability benefits, corporations are not, however, required to report this information in their annual or stand-alone reports. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the quantity and quality of voluntary reporting and seek to add to the nascent theoretical understanding of voluntary corporate political donations. Design/methodology/approach Corporate donors were obtained from the Australian Electoral Commission database. Annual and stand-alone reports were analysed to determine the quantity and quality of voluntary disclosures and compared to O’Donovan’s (2002) legitimation disclosure response matrix. Findings Of those companies with available reports, only 25 per cent reported any donation information. Longitudinal results show neither a robust increase in disclosure levels over time, nor a clear relationship between donation activity and disclosure. The findings support a legitimation tactic being applied to political donation disclosures. Practical implications The findings suggest that disclosure of political donations in corporate reports should be mandatory. Such reporting could facilitate aligning shareholder and citizen interests; aligning managerial and firm interests and closing disclosure loopholes. Originality/value The study extends the literature by evaluating donation disclosures by companies known to have made donations, considering time-series data and theorising the findings.

Will the revisions to GRI 303 improve corporate water reporting? The challenges of defining and operationalising “water stress”

“…Rather, we take the position that providing contextual water information will serve the public interest, and therefore an important question is whether the revisions to GRI 303 will contribute to that objective. Similarly, whilst we acknowledge that organisational sustainability reports are not the onlyor even the bestreporting approach to drive organisational change (Leong and Hazelton, 2019;Tello et al, 2019;Ullah et al, 2021), we suggest that such reporting can nevertheless play an important role. Consequently, our research questions examine the clarity of the concept of water stress and the approach to operationalising this concept recommended by GRI 303.…”

Missing voices in GRI standards? Distinct material concerns of Latin American stakeholders revealed by COVID-19

“…To date, research considering the sufficiency of GRI standards has been limited to studies which have investigated reporting requirements for particular sustainability issues, such as health and safety (O'Neill et al. , 2015), political donations (Tello et al. , 2019), and water (Hazelton, 2015); particular industries, such as mining (Fonseca et al.…”

“…Despite sustained academic research concerning the GRI, surprisingly few studies have explored the completeness of the GRI standards, or in other words the extent to which the standards fully reflect public concerns or are missing disclosure requirements that are important to some stakeholders. To date, research considering the sufficiency of GRI standards has been limited to studies which have investigated reporting requirements for particular sustainability issues, such as health and safety (O'Neill et al, 2015), political donations (Tello et al, 2019), and water (Hazelton, 2015); particular industries, such as mining (Fonseca et al, 2014) and the public sector (Dumay et al, 2010); and particular stakeholders such as customers (Williams et al, 2016) and investors (Hazelton and Perkiss, 2018). While each of these studies provides specific insights, they do not address the question as to whether the GRI standards are of sufficient breadth, i.e.…”

“…In addition to general reviews of GRI reporting, there has been extensive research into corporate compliance with GRI standards across a range of settings and topics (see, e.g. Leong et al, 2014;Egan et al, 2015;O'Neill et al, 2015;Leal et al, 2019;Parsa et al, 2019;Tello et al, 2019), which has typically reported poor results. Surprisingly, little research, however, has examined the quality of the GRI standards themselves, especially in relation to developing countries.…”