Implementing biodiversity reporting: insights from the case of the largest dairy company in China

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore the biodiversity reporting by the largest dairy company in China (the Yili Group). The authors use signalling theory, legitimacy theory, institutional theory and stakeholder theory to understand the Yili Group’s motivations to report biodiversity disclosures. Design/methodology/approach This study uses content analysis, guided by a biodiversity disclosure index, to explore and investigate the disclosure themes and tone for the stand-alone Yili Group biodiversity reports for the period 2017–2019. The content analysis is supplemented by a selection of interviews used to obtain additional insights into the Yili Group’s biodiversity reporting. Findings A gradual improvement is noted in the Yili Group’s biodiversity reporting over time, while the need for improvement remains as the Yili Group matures in its reporting. The company tends to report symbolic disclosures rather than substantive ones and is motivated more by external pressures and/or incentives than by morality and/or stakeholder accountability: this pushes the company towards more dominant symbolic biodiversity disclosure practices. Practical implications Findings are particularly relevant to the management of Chinese companies planning to publish biodiversity reports or enhance biodiversity disclosure practices as they draw attention to specific aspects of biodiversity reporting which require improvement. Improvements in biodiversity reporting provide a signal that such reporting is maturing and that organizations are recognizing the need for managing their biodiversity impact. Social implications Given that the Yili Group is a pioneer among Chinese firms in publishing biodiversity reports, this paper suggests other companies’ imitation of the Yili Group and helps promote the diffusion of biodiversity reporting in China. In addition, this paper provides a basis for a call for Chinese companies to strengthen their awareness and accountability regarding biodiversity and the conservation thereof. Originality/value This study is among the first to explore biodiversity reporting and disclosure in a China-based organization. While the study deals with one company, the findings are broadly applicable for other organizations seeking to undertake biodiversity accounting and reporting. Considering that biodiversity accounting is a research area which is still under-investigated, this paper aims to respond to the call of Jones and Solomon (2013) for pushing the boundaries in biodiversity accounting.

An algorithmic historiography of biodiversity accounting literature

“…, 2020; O'Dwyer and Unerman, 2020). Nowadays, corporate social and environmental responsibility are dominant in many organisations' reporting strategies, with a particular emphasis on biodiversity (Sun and Lange, 2023; Roberts et al. , 2020).…”

“…From an accounting perspective, the development of social and environmental practices to safeguard nature has been being a matter of concern for many years (Raar et al, 2020;O'Dwyer and Unerman, 2020). Nowadays, corporate social and environmental responsibility are dominant in many organisations' reporting strategies, with a particular emphasis on biodiversity (Sun and Lange, 2023;Roberts et al, 2020). The contemporary study of biodiversity accounting began with the article by Jones (1996), "Accounting for biodiversity: a pilot study", which underlined the need to collect, classify, physically aggregate, evaluate in both monetary and non-monetary terms, publish and make visible data on wildlife to assess organisations ' environmental performances (p. 288).…”

Sustainability reporting: Current state and challenges

“…Third most prominent approach is institutional theory (Jeriji & Nasfi, 2022;Posadas et al, 2023;Santos et al, 2022;Wong et al, 2022) which identify organisations as a follower of industry norms and explain corporate action more as a social legitimacy instead of built on real effectiveness or benefit of actions and reporting. Some more theories which were used in the literature to add more dimensions are, Signalling theory (Sun, 2023;Sun & Lange, 2022), Contingency theory (Ganescu, 2012;Miles & Ringham, 2019) Agency theory (Delbufalo, 2018;Hamad et al, 2020;Janggu et al, 2014), value creation theory (Buallay, 2019;Buallay et al, 2020), and so on. All theories add value to the explanation for organisations reporting though further perspective need to be added like, more theoretical development is required in the field to generate effectiveness while formulating policies and strategies for better management and reporting.…”