The influence of the institutional context on sustainability reporting. A cross-national analysis

Abstract

Purpose This paper intends to compare the sustainability reporting (SR) in three different national and institutional contexts, namely Italy, Brazil and USA, and aims to investigate whether companies show a different approach to SR depending on the institutional setting where they operate. Design/methodology/approach To reach this goal, a sample of 150 reports was content-analyzed through a methodology based on a coding process which overcomes part of the limitations in previous works. Findings Results observed a relationship between the SR and the characteristics of institutional contexts, thus suggesting that while there is a general acceptance and use of international SR standards and initiatives, the content is influenced by and shaped on the characteristics of the national institutional context. In other words, although a widely diffused base of data and information can be found in the SR of companies in different contexts, the accent is put on specific issues which reflect the political, cultural, religious, legal and otherwise defined institutions in the national system. Originality/value Using the institutional theory the paper demonstrated that institutional contexts is one of the drivers of contents of sustainability reports.

Which Corporate Governance Mechanisms Drive CSR Disclosure Practices in Emerging Countries?

“…In order to show the relevance of the institutional environment in corporate reporting, we found theoretical support in Institutional Theory [38][39][40], Stakeholders Theory [41,42], and Legitimacy Theory [43]. According to Ali et al [14], this last theoretical approach (Legitimacy Theory) is the dominant theoretical lens in studies of companies from both developed and developing countries.…”

“…Luoma and Goodstein [47] emphasized the need to understand the institutional environment in which firms operate for a better comprehension of firm strategies and managerial choices in relation to CSR practices and engagement. Following this suggestion, some authors have shown how the differences concerning CSR implementation and performance among organizations from different institutional settings can be explained in terms of the differences in the rules, norms, values, routines, and responsibilities expected [40]. Likewise, CG mechanisms are determined by the institutional environment in which each company has developed its activities [19,30].…”

Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies

“…Further, empirical evidence shows that SRQ is the synthesis of a complex system of elements, including the quantity and type of information disclosed, the managerial orientation of the companies [68], and the credibility of their sustainability reporting practices [69]. Adopting different methods of evaluation, researchers have demonstrated that in the absence of common rules, sustainability reporting practices vary in different countries [70]. Unfortunately, few studies have focused on the variations on SRQ after the implementation of mandatory NFD in a cross-country perspective [9].…”

Sustainability Reporting Quality of Peruvian Listed Companies and the Impact of Regulatory Requirements of Sustainability Disclosures

“…According to some studies, the introduction of new regulatory requirements contributes to the improvement of sustainability reporting quality, and others, on the contrary, provide evidence for no effect [78,82,[97][98][99][100]. There might be at least two reasons explaining this absence of consensus: on the one hand, evidence regarding sustainability reporting practices studied from the institutional theory perspective supports a line of argumentation that proposes that sustainability reporting practices depend on the institutional frameworks in which they are developed [101][102][103][104][105]. Consequently, the design of laws or policies establishing mandatory sustainability reporting might influence in diverse ways the outcomes of sustainability reporting practices.…”