Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Uptake of Sustainability Reporting in Australia

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we identify and discuss how sustainability reporting has spread throughout the Australian business community over the past twenty years or so. We identified all Australian business organisations that have produced a sustainability report since 1995, and we undertook an interview survey with managers of reporting companies. By incorporating a wide range and large number of reporting companies, we offer insights beyond those obtained from traditional report content analysis and from close analyses of singular case-study organisations. We reveal that sustainability reporting has deepened in a few high-impact industries, and it has spread to a small number of firms in a wide range of low-impact industries. We tested whether there were any relationships between the drivers of reporting and the experiences of different types of reporting firms. Many of the relationships we observed were not as clear or as consistent as expected. Sustainability reporting is, however, of strategic importance to reporting companies. Given the small number of reporters in Australia, we raise the possibility of strategic differentiation as a key driver of reporting behaviour and suggest further studies to explore institutional fields that may be shaping sustainability reporting practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the generic term ‘sustainability reporting’ in this paper, even though we acknowledge the nomenclature is unclear. We thus treat sustainability reporting as synonymous with ‘Triple Bottom Line Reporting’, ‘Corporate Responsibility Reporting’, ‘Corporate Citizenship Report’, ‘Community Report’. Moreover, we are clear that our use of ‘sustainability reporting’ in no way indicates we concur with the myth organisational reporting and activity constitutes a progression towards ecological sustainability (see, Milne and Gray 2013).

  2. The Australian Government requires companies to report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System (NGERS) if they have operational control of a facility that emits equal to or greater than 25,000 tonnes of CO2e (tCO2e) and/or produces equal to or greater than 100 terajoules (TJ) of energy and/or consumes equal to or greater than 100 TJ of energy. Reporting is also required if the corporate group emits equal to or greater than 125,000 tCO2e and/or produces equal to or greater than 500 TJ of energy and/or consumes equal to or greater than 500 TJ of energy. See http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-measurement-and-reporting/company-emissions-measurement/national. In addition to this companies that use more than 0.5 petajoules (PJ) of energy per year are required to participate in the Government’s Energy Efficiency Opportunities programme that requires them to identify, evaluate and report publicly on cost effective energy savings opportunities. There are more than 220 corporations (incorporating around 1,200 subsidiaries) registered for the Energy Efficiency Opportunities programme. See http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/efficiency/eeo/Pages/default.aspx.

  3. Our interest is in the experiences of business organisations that voluntarily engage in this type of reporting, so we excluded Government (State/Federal/Local) departments and councils, industry associations, interest groups, and Not-For-Profit organisations that also produced these types of reports. We did, however, include some ‘corporatised’ Government-owned organisations that operate in competitive, for-profit markets (e.g. utilities, infrastructure).

  4. Integrated Reporting was not well developed or articulated at this time of this study (2009/2010), but we did find companies experimenting with the structure of their reports—moving between stand-alone and combined reports regardless of any organised move towards ‘integrated reporting’.

  5. Our search of current websites raised the risk of missing some early reporters. We did, for instance, have the names of some companies that had apparently reported in the past, but we could not find any evidence of those reports having existed. These organisations were not included in the study.

  6. A copy of the interview/survey instrument is available on request.

  7. Each model was selected to minimise the Akaike information criterion (AIC). This is a measure of the relative quality of a statistical model, for a given set of data. AIC deals with the trade-off between the goodness of fit of the model and the complexity of the model; it offers a relative estimate of the information lost when a given model is used to represent the process that generates the data. AIC selects the “best” model available but does not provide a test of a model in the sense of testing a null hypothesis. If all the candidate models fit poorly, AIC simply selects the one that minimises the AIC.

References

  • Adams, C. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 15(2), 223–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., & Frost, G. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(2), 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20, 382–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., & Whelan, G. (2009). Conceptualising future change in corporate sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(1), 118–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, O. (2003). Environmental reporting and transport—the case of a public transport company. Business Strategy & the Environment, 12(6), 386–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. (2009). Sustainability reporting practices of S&P/ASX200 companies. Melbourne: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government Corporations and Market Advisory Committee. (2005). Corporate social responsibility Discussion Paper. Canberra: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. (2006). Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value. Canberra: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A., & Craig, R. (2010). Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(3), 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Higgins, C., & Frame, B. (2009). Initiating sustainable development reporting: Evidence from New Zealand. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(4), 588–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., & Moneva, J. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belal, A. R., & Owen, D. L. (2007). The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: An engagement-based study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 472–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1999). The public disclosure of environmental performance information: A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N. (2002). A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R., & Milne, M. (2004). The triple bottom line: How New Zealand companies measure up. International journal for sustainable business, 11(2), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., Gordon, I., & Magnan, M. (2004). Corporate environmental disclosure: Contrasting management’s perceptions with reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1997). The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(4), 562–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1999). The environmental reporting expectations gap: Australian evidence. British Accounting Review, 31, 313–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In P. Powell & W. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (Ed.). (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J., Knight, P., & Hailes, J. (1991). The green business guide. London: Victor Gollancz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst & Ernst. (1978). Social responsibility disclosure: 1978 survey. Cleveland, OH: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, G. (2007). The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guidelines: Australian evidence. Abacus, 43(2), 190–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadenne, D., & Ladewig, J. (2007). The influence of the Australian Environmental Protection Authority on corporate environmental disclosures. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(3), 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulos, G., & Thomson, I. (2008). Social reporting, engagements, controversies and conflict in an arena context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(8), 1116–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. (2007). Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2000). Sustainability reporting guidelines on economic, environmental and social performance. Geneva: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2006). G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., Cuganesan, S., & Ward, L. (2008). Industry specific social and environmental reporting: The Australian food and beverage industry. Accounting Forum, 32(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 9(76), 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackston, D., & Milne, M. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(1), 77–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock-Fraser, J., & Fraser, I. (2008). Assessing corporate environmental reporting motivations: differences between ‘close-to-market’ and ‘business-to-business’ companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(3), 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, C.-J., & von Malmborg, F. (2003). The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Sustainability reporting: Insights from institutional theory. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (1999). Evaluating corporate environmental reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(4), 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2004). A decade of sustainability reporting: Developments and significance. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental reporting by multinationals from the triad: Convergence or divergence? Management International Review, 45(1), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2007). On the economic dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Exploring fortune global 250 reports. Business and Society, 46(4), 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2010a). Social and sustainability dimensions of regionalization and (semi)globalization. The Multinational Business Review, 18(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2010b). Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting MNEs and global CSR standards. Management International Review, 51(5), 665–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2010). MNC reporting on CSR and conflict in central Africa. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., Walhain, S., & van de Wateringen, S. (2001). Environmental reporting by the Fortune Global 250: Exploring the influence of nationality and sector. Business Strategy & the Environment, 10(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotonen, U. (2009). Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 10(3), 176–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (1993). KPMG International survey of environmental reporting 1993. Amsterdam: KPMG Environmental Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (1996). KPMG International survey of environmental reporting 1996. Amsterdam: KPMG Environmental Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (1999). KPMG International survey of environmental reporting 1999. Amsterdam: KPMG Environmental Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2002). KPMG International survey of corporate sustainability reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2005). International survey of corporate social responsibility reporting 2005. Amsterdam: KPMG International.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2008). International survey of corporate social responsibility reporting, 2008. Amsterdam: KPMG International.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). The KPMG survey of corporate social responsibility reporting. London: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., & Bebbington, J. (2001). ‘Accounting change or institutional appropriation? A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. K. (1993). The implications for organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Proceedings of the critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York.

  • Macve, R., & Chen, X. (2010). The “equator principles”: A success for voluntary codes? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 890–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maharaj, R., & Herremans, I. M. (2008). Shell Canada: Over a decade of sustainable development reporting experience. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 8, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. D., & Hadley, D. J. (2008). Corporate environmental non-reporting—a UK FTSE 350 perspective. Business Strategy & the Environment, 17(4), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, M. R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 10(4), 481–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., & Chan, C. (1999). Narrative corporate social disclosures: How much of a difference do they make to investment decision-making? The British Accounting Review, 31(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., & Gray, R. (2007). Future prospects for corporate sustainability reporting. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., & Gray, R. (2013). (W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2003). The triple bottom line: Benchmarking New Zealand’s early reporters. University of Auckland Business Review, 5(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1211–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J., Percy, M., & McKinlay, B. (2006). Voluntary environmental reporting practices: A further study of ‘poor’ environmental performers. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 19(2), 182–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morhardt, J. (2009). General disregard for details of GRI human rights reporting by large corporations. Global Business Review, 10(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morhardt, J., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI2000, ISO14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, V., & Abeysekera, I. (2008). Corporate social reporting practices of top Indian software firms. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 2(1), 36–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noci, G. (2000). Environmental reporting in Italy: current practice and future developments. Business Strategy & the Environment, 9(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2002). Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: An Irish story. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 406–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2005). The construction of a social account: A case study in an overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. (2005). Social and environmental accounting research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 471–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. (2002). Media exposure, public policy pressure, and environmental disclosure: An examination of the impact of tri data availability. Accounting Forum, 26(2), 152–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M., Zeffane, R., & Medley, P. (1992). Corporate environmental commitment in Australia: A sectoral comparison. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1(2), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. London: Collier Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, W., Burritt, R., & Monroe, G. (2011). Environmental management accounting in local government: A case of waste management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(1), 93–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quaak, L., Aalbers, T., & Goedee, J. (2007). Transparency of corporate social responsibility in Dutch breweries. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(3), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raar, J. (2002). Environmental initiatives: Towards triple-bottom line reporting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 73(3), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A., & Lewis, L. (2002). Incentives and disincentives for corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 20(6), 855–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. (2009). Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 254–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, W., Higgins, C., & Milne, M. (2013). Why do companies not produce sustainability reports? Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 456–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, C. (2001). The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental policies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(2), 190–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, C. (2008). Environmental disclosures outside the annual report. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(3), 288–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, C., & Symes, C. (1999). Environmental disclosure by Australian mining companies: Environmental conscience or commercial reality. Accounting Forum, 23(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., Milne, M. J., & Kearins, K. (2013). (Re) presenting sustainable organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2013.10.006.

  • UNEP/SustainAbility. (2004). Risk and opportunity: Best practice in non-financial reporting. The Global Reporters 2004 survey of Sustainability Reporting. London: Author.

  • Vormedal, I., & Ruud, A. (2009). Sustainability reporting in Norway—an assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy & the Environment, 18(4), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmshurst, T. D., & Frost, G. R. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yongvanich, K., & Guthrie, J. (2005). Extended performance reporting: An examination of the Australian mining industry. Accounting Forum, 29(1), 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S., Pruzan, P., & Evans, R. (1997). Building corporate accountability: Emerging practices in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Australasian CSEAR conference in Tasmania in December 2011. We are grateful for feedback provided by the conference participants and paper reviewers. Dr Neil Diamond provided valuable insights about statistical analysis. The comments of three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin Graduate School of Business, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Colin Higgins

  2. Department of Accounting & Information Systems, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Markus J. Milne

  3. Faculty of Business & Enterprise, Swinburne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Bernadine van Gramberg

Authors
  1. Colin Higgins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus J. Milne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernadine van Gramberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin Higgins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Higgins, C., Milne, M.J. & van Gramberg, B. The Uptake of Sustainability Reporting in Australia. J Bus Ethics 129, 445–468 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2171-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2171-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation