Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is Sustainability Reporting Becoming Institutionalised? The Role of an Issues-Based Field

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

Abstract

We study companies that do not produce a sustainability report in contexts where institutionalisation is assumed. Based on a careful analysis of interaction patterns between non-reporting companies, sustainability interest groups, and peer organisations, we find patterns of discursive and material isomorphism that suggest sustainability reporting is confined to an issues-based field, rather than spreading as an institutionalised practice across the business community. We argue that the issues-based field exerts only weak pressure for sustainability reporting, and that encouraging more firms to report rests on understanding what influences companies to interact more widely to become part of this field.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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 

  • Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental reporting: An international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 299–331.

    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 

  • Archel, P., Fernández, M., & Larrinaga, C. (2008). The organizational and operational boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: A survey. Environmental Management, 4, 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archel, P., Husillos, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalisation of unaccountability: Loading the dice of corporate social responsibility discourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. (2011). Sustainability reporting practices of the S&P/ASX200. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council of Superannuation Investors.

    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 

  • Barkemeyer, R., Preuss, L., & Lee, L. (2015). On the effectiveness of private transnational governance regimes—evaluating corporate sustainability reporting according to the global reporting initiative. Journal of World Business, 50(2), 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, I., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behaviour, legitimacy-based groups and performance consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1559–1581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J. (1997). Engagement, education and sustainability: A review essay on environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(3), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J. (2001). Sustainable development: A review of the international development, business and accounting literature. Accounting Forum, 25(2), 128–157.

    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 

  • Boxenbaum, E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as institutional hybrids. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(Article Type: research-article/Issue Title: Supplement 1: Globalization and the Good Corporation/Full publication date: 2009/Copyright © 2009 Springer) pp. 299–317.

  • Choudhury, N. (1988). The seeking of accounting where it is not: Towards a theory of non-accounting in organizational settings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(6), 549–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, M. (1991). Environmental management in development: The evolution of paradigms. Ecological Economics, 3(3), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, E., Lawrence, S., Pavlovich, K., & Ryan, C. (2007). Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices. Journal of cleaner production, 15, 729–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., & Alexander, D. (2014). The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting. British Accounting Review, 46(2), 198–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., Low, M., & Samkin, G. (2014). The institutionalisation of mining company sustainability disclosures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    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 

  • del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., Llach, J., & Marimon, F. (2014). A closer look at the ‘global reporting initiative’ sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 318–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J., Rigsby, J., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: Duality and the institutionalisation process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: US art museums, 1920-1940. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    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, London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, T. (2007). Reporting on the triple bottom line at cascade engineering. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 26(3), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fifka, M. (2011). Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective: A review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Business, Strategy & The Environment, 22, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. Diaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1991). Making corporate actors accountable: Institution building in Minneapolis-St Paul. In W. Powell & P. Dimaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational studies (pp. 293–310). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    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 

  • Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    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., & Bebbington, J. (2007). Corporate sustainability, accountability and the pursuit of the impossible dream. In G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, & E. Numeyer (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürtürk, A., & Hahn, R. (2015). An empirical assessment of assurance statements in sustainability reports: Smoke screens or enlightening information? Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.089.

  • Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm convention. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1365–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I. M., Herschovis, S. M., & Bertels, S. (2008). Leaders and laggards: The influence of competing logics on corporate environmental action. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(7), 449–472.

    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., Milne, M., & van Gramberg, B. (2015). The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 445–468.

    Article  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 

  • Hoffman, A. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14(2), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12(4), 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iraldo, F., Testa, F., & Frey, M. (2009). Is an environmental management system able to influence environmental and competitive performance? The case of the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) in the European union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1444–1452.

    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. (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., 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 

  • Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.

    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 

  • Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in Finnish corporate disclosures. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 395–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga, C. (2007). Sustainability reporting: Insights from neo-institutional theory. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. K. (1993). The implications for organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. New York: Proceedings of the Critical Perspectives on Accounting conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livesey, S. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 313–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livesey, S., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? - A study of sustainability reports by the body shop and royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment, 15(3), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1(2), 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Scott, R. (1992). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    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., & Patten, D. M. (2002). Securing organizational legitimacy: An experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 372–405.

    Article  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 

  • Morhardt, J. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(7), 436–452.

    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 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional pressure. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, M., Lodwick, D., & Dunlap, R. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, N., & O’Dwyer, B. (2015). The structuration of issue-based fields: Social accountability, social movements and the Equator principles issue-based field. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 43, 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time?: A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635–652.

    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 

  • Raufflet, E., Barin Cruz, L., & Bres, L. (2014). An assessment of corporate social responsibility practices in the mining and oil and gas industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 256–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, D., & Bazzoni, J. (2009). Greening corporate identity: CSR online corporate identity reporting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, G., Brown, H. S., & Bass, L. (2000). Leaders in sustainable development: How agents of change define the agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(5), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vintró, C., Sanmiquel, L., & Freijo, M. (2014). Environmental sustainability in the mining sector: Evidence from Catalan companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, S., & Marais, M. (2012). A multi-level perspective of CSR Reporting: The implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(5), 432–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitz, G., Mittal, V., & McAuly, B. (1999). Distinguishing adoption and entrenchment of management practices: A framework analysis. Organization Studies, 20(5), 741–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

    Colin Higgins

  2. School of Social Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Wendy Stubbs

  3. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Markus Milne

Authors
  1. Colin Higgins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy Stubbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Milne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin Higgins.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Deakin University Human Ethics Committee and Monash University Human Ethics Committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Higgins, C., Stubbs, W. & Milne, M. Is Sustainability Reporting Becoming Institutionalised? The Role of an Issues-Based Field. J Bus Ethics 147, 309–326 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2931-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2931-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation