The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8021.htm

SAMPJ
7,2
What are the drivers of
sustainability reporting?
A systematic review
154 Dominik Dienes, Remmer Sassen and Jasmin Fischer
HBS Hamburg Business School, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematise the research field of sustainability reporting.
The authors contribute to closing this research gap and, on the basis of this systematisation, address the
research question of what are the drivers of sustainability reporting.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper systematically reviews existing studies and analyses
drivers of sustainability reporting using a qualitative approach. The authors intend to demonstrate and
discuss the wide range of approaches used in literature.
Findings – The review suggests that firm size, media visibility and ownership structure are the most
important drivers of the disclosure of sustainability reports, while corporate governance only seems to
have an influence on the existence of audit or sustainability committees. In contrast, other determinants
such as profitability, capital structure, firm age or board composition as an indicator of corporate
governance do not show a clear tendency.
Originality/value – The authors systemise the research field related to sustainability reporting to
give an overview of the current research landscape that is not influenced by environmental or social
reporting and discuss the identified determinants and the related variables. This results in a
comprehensive report of what is known and unknown about the questions addressed in the systematic
review.
Keywords CSR disclosure, Sustainability reporting, Corporate social responsibility reporting,
Sustainability, Sustainable development
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
In the wake of a changed awareness, sustainability concerns have become highly
relevant to society (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010) and, therefore, are also increasingly
becoming a part of management decisions (Windolph et al., 2014), accounting practice
(Gray, 2010; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2006) and reporting practice (Guidry and Patten,
2010; Herzig and Schaltegger, 2006) both in corporations and public sector entities
(Adams, 2013; Cebrián et al., 2013). The aim of sustainability (performance)
management is, firstly, to link environmental and social management with business and
competitive strategy management (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006a) and, secondly, the
integration of environmental and social information with economic business
Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal information and sustainability reporting (Mook, 2006; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006b).
Vol. 7 No. 2, 2016
pp. 154-189
Thus, sustainability activities follow a strategic inside-out approach of performance
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8021
measurement and management as well as an outside-in approach to adapt to external
DOI 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050 sustainability requirements (Herzig and Schaltegger, 2011) or fulfil legitimacy
requirements (Lodhia and Jacobs, 2013; Bent, 2006). Many organisations already Drivers of
voluntarily publish a growing amount of sustainability information to meet the sustainability
increased interest of their shareholders as well as their internal and external
stakeholders (e.g. suppliers, employees, capital providers and state) (Ebinger et al., 2006;
reporting
Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Addressing the specific information needs of these
stakeholders requires involving them in the reporting process (Adams and McNicholas,
2007); for instance, in regard to issues concerning employees, the environment or 155
corporate philanthropy (Kolk, 2003). In this respect, key performance indicators (KPIs)
that are suggested for use by standardised guidelines for sustainability reporting such
as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (GRI, 2013; Thurm, 2006) are gaining growing
momentum (Vormedal and Ruud, 2009). These KPIs are increasingly being used in
decision-making, strategic planning and performance management including risk
management (Adams and Frost, 2008). They should be summarised in a separate
sustainability report that ideally is to be audited prior to delivery to stakeholders
(Adams, 2004), whether such delivery is paper-based or digitally through the corporate
website (Adams and Frost, 2006; Maijala and Pohjola, 2006).
The demand for information by capital markets shows that especially sustainable
investors consider both financial and non-financial information in their investment
decisions (Arnold et al., 2012). Drivers of this demand can be corporate factors (e.g. size
or industry grouping) or general contextual factors (e.g. economic, political or social
context) (Adams, 2002), whereas the fundamental drivers of sustainability reporting are
considered to be the maximisation of shareholder wealth, the maintenance of
organisational legitimacy and the management of risks to corporate reputation (Adams
and Whelan, 2009). Especially the corporate drivers have changed in recent years and
will continue to be subject to further changes in the future; for instance, because of the
transition from sustainability to integrated reporting (IIRC, 2013; Lodhia, 2015).
Research on sustainability reporting has gained increasing importance, and the first
reviews have been conducted to systematise this research field. Some of these studies
have focused on special topics related to sustainability reporting (Klovienė and Speziale,
2014; Pérez, 2015) or on a specific country (Branco and Delgado, 2011; Guan and
Noronha, 2013), while others have taken a more general approach (Burritt and
Schaltegger, 2010; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013). A few of these reviews have analysed
studies that investigated not only sustainability reports but also different types of
sustainability-related reporting (e.g. by taking only social and/or environmental issues
into account). Reporting practice has changed since the 1970s (Fifka, 2012; Hahn and
Kühnen, 2013). In some cases, traditional financial reporting has been complemented by
social reports (Cormier and Gordon, 2001) or, since the 1980s, by environmental reports
(Clarkson et al., 2008; Cormier et al., 2005). In the 1990s, the focus shifted to more
comprehensive corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports or sustainability reports.
All these types of reports are to some extent sustainability related. The investigation of
various types of sustainability-related reporting in a single systematic review bears the
risk of misinterpreting the results. To avoid this problem, we focus only on studies
that include comprehensive sustainability reporting. One prominent concept to
operationalise sustainability is Elkington’s (1997) triple bottom line (TBL). This concept
refers to three sustainability dimensions (economic, environmental and social). So does
the GRI, which was established in 2000 and is the most frequently used standard
worldwide.
SAMPJ Against this background, we provide an overview of the current state of research in
7,2 the area of sustainability reporting by organising our systematic review of the literature
around the following research question:
RQ1. What are the drivers of sustainability reporting that are identified in empirical
research?
156 We followed a twofold approach. First, we systematised the research on sustainability
reporting conducted over the past 16 years (2000-2015), with the aim of structuring this
field. Our intention was to provide a systematic review of today’s research landscape of
sustainability reporting. In contrast to other studies, we have omitted studies that
include only a single or just two sustainability dimensions (e.g. environmental and/or
social) to consider only those studies that have looked at comprehensive sustainability
reporting. To the best of our knowledge, our systematic review is the first of its kind to
have such a clear focus on sustainability reporting. By excluding studies that
investigate non-comprehensive sustainability-related reporting (e.g. social and/or
environmental accounting and/or reporting), we ensure that the field of sustainability
reporting under consideration is up to date. Our broad analysis of recent research has
resulted in a synopsis of a total of 316 studies, of which 48 address the determinants of
sustainability reporting. Although we have applied stricter criteria for inclusion than
previous reviews of this kind, we have, nevertheless, investigated a higher number of
relevant primary studies (Guan and Noronha, 2013 investigated 202 papers or Hahn and
Kühnen, 2013 investigated 178 papers).
In a second step, we aimed to derive more comprehensive statements on the basis of
those studies that have investigated determinants of sustainability reporting. This
qualitative type of systematic review is able to produce results that can claim more
general validity extending beyond the limited perspective of the primary studies
considered (e.g. beyond certain companies, specific countries or different periods of
time). The objective of these studies is to identify the characteristics that explain why
organisations publish specific information on sustainability. We examined these studies
for the determinants that influence the reporting behaviour. We then summarised the
results of the primary studies and related them to one another. Applying a qualitative
approach, we intend to demonstrate and discuss the broadness of the approaches used in
literature. This will help to derive more comprehensive statements beyond the results of
each of the 48 primary studies considered and reveal areas where further research is
needed to address inconsistencies in the results of these studies.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, we present the
methodological approach of systematic review, which we applied to locate, select and
evaluate the relevant studies. This is followed by an analysis and synthesis of the
results. Finally, we provide a discussion and implications.

2. Methodology: systematic review

2.1 Fundamental terminology
Before we begin with our systematic review, it is necessary to define the concepts of
sustainability and CSR. European Commission (2011, p. 6), for instance, defined CSR as:
[…] the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society […] to integrate social,
environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations
and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders.
With respect to sustainability reporting, the Commission recently stated that one Drivers of
possibility of demonstrating CSR is to disclose sustainability information “by sustainability
combining long-term profitability with social justice and environmental protection”
(European Commission, 2014, p. 3). This thinking on CSR is directly related to the
reporting
concept of sustainability.
Generally, sustainability is based on the definition of the World Commission on
Environment and Development, which emphasises intra- and intergenerational justice. 157
Accordingly, companies can promote sustainable development if they meet “the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 54). To
operationalise this objective, corporations should consider their economic,
environmental and social impacts on society in general and on stakeholders in particular
(Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). While Elkington (1997) established this as the TBL
approach, there have been discussions about including further dimensions such as time
(Lozano and Huisingh, 2011) or corporate governance (environmental, social and
governance) (Murphy and McGrath, 2013), which are all related to the concept of
sustainability. As a result of convergence, the concepts CSR and sustainability are
considered consistent concepts, even in terms of reporting requirements (Hahn and
Kühnen, 2013).

2.2 Underlying research question and methodology

The first objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current
state of research on sustainability reporting that goes beyond previous research. We
have identified six studies that have performed methodologically rigorous systematic
and literature reviews of sustainability reporting (see Section 3). Of course, there are
several other kinds of reviews, such as literature overviews, that have been conducted as
part of relevant empirical studies (Clarkson et al., 2008; Cormier and Gordon, 2001;
Cormier et al., 2005), but none of these reviews are based on a systematic review.
Furthermore, there are some systematic reviews that focus on reporting types that are
related to sustainability reporting. For example, Lodhia and Hess (2014) examined the
current literature on sustainability accounting and reporting in a single industry
(mining) that has been published in one journal (Journal of Cleaner Production). Parker
(2005, 2011, 2014) gives an impressive account of the research in the field of social and
environmental accounting by exposing the characteristics of the methodological
approaches in four top journals. This research is obviously related to sustainability
reporting, but the focus is on accounting and not on reporting, on the one hand, and on
the social and/or environmental dimension and not on a broad conception of
sustainability, on the other. Furthermore, Fifka (2012, 2013) has published two
comprehensive and well-known studies that we have not included in our review, as they
focus on responsibility reporting as well as social and/or environmental reporting. Fifka
(2013) reviews empirical research on corporate responsibility reporting reaching back to
the 1970s and examines whether there are differences in the methodological approaches
of researchers from different regions and, hence, in the results they arrive at. Fifka (2012)
traces the chronological development and characteristics of empirical research on social
and environmental reporting over the past 40 years.
Against this background, we relate our research to the six studies identified
that performed methodologically rigorous systematic and literature reviews of
SAMPJ sustainability reporting (see Section 3) and that were part of the search results according
7,2 to the criteria of our methodological approach (see Sections 2.3-2.5). Some of these
studies have focused on special aspects of sustainability reporting or sustainability
reporting in a specific country, while other studies have adopted a more general
approach. In their review of 117 papers published between January and August 2014,
Klovienė and Speziale (2014) studied sustainability reporting as a challenge for
158 performance measurement. Pérez (2015) analysed corporate reputation as an outcome of
CSR reporting on the basis of 77 papers published between January 1992 and April 2014.
Two other studies focused their reviews on specific countries. Branco and Delgado
(2011) explored the role of Portuguese academics in CSR (disclosure) research in
reference to 29 articles published between 1998 and 2008. Guan and Noronha (2013)
investigated CSR reporting research in Chinese academia, using 202 documents
published between 1998 and 2010 as their database. They found that much of the CSR
literature in China is of a conceptual, descriptive or argumentative nature. Burritt and
Schaltegger (2010, p. 829) applied a more general approach but limited their reviewed to
a selection of prominent work only to “discuss the current development of sustainability
accounting research, the identification of critical and managerial paths, and to assess of
the future of sustainability accounting and reporting”. Hahn and Kühnen (2013)
investigated contemporary empirical and conceptual research from 1999 onwards. By
looking at a more recent time span, their review, in contrast to Fifka (2012, 2013),
captures developments that are less likely to be the product of major changes in the
corporate and societal environment. Hahn and Kühnen (2013, p. 5) provided a review of
178 articles published between 1999 and 2011 “to identify what determinants of
sustainability reporting are examined in the literature and to identify (in)consistencies,
gaps, and opportunities for future research”. They classified these studies along the
lines of the adoption, extent and quality of sustainability reporting. Hahn and Kühnen
(2013) refer to sustainability-related reporting and include different types of reports [e.g.
social reports, environmental reports, corporate (social) responsibility reports, corporate
citizenship reports and sustainability reports]. This approach bears the risk of
misinterpreting the results on sustainability reporting systematised in their review.
Although there are six reviews that address sustainability reporting – as mentioned
above – there remains a research gap in this field. In particular, there is no study that
exclusively analyses papers that focus on comprehensive sustainability reporting. All
previous systematic reviews have also included more limited sustainability-related
reporting such as social or environmental reporting. To close this gap, we first provide
a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on sustainability reporting
that is not influenced by social and environmental reporting to answer the question of
what research methods have been used in previous studies, which conclusions have
been drawn and what impact these studies have had. Prior literature reviews show that
a considerable proportion of such papers have examined factors determining
sustainability reporting. On the basis of these reviews, we identified the respective
research on drivers of sustainability reporting and looked for further specifications by
means of a systematic literature review.
According to Denyer and Tranfield (2009, p. 671), a:
[…] systematic review is a specific methodology that locates existing studies, selects and
evaluates contributions, analyses and synthesises data, and reports the evidence in such a way
that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known.
It is important to mention that a (qualitative) systematic review is different from the Drivers of
traditional (narrative) literature review (Khan et al., 2003). It is a research project in its sustainability
own right that pursues a specific research question by secondary analysis of existing
studies (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Methodologically, a systematic review can be
reporting
further characterised as a type of content analysis that can observe qualitative and
quantitative issues alike (Brewerton and Millward, 2001). The kind of results a
systematic review can be expected to produce is sound and robust evidence that can be 159
applied to different contexts. At the same time, it can identify knowledge gaps or
inconsistent findings that indicate a specific need for future research (Denyer and
Tranfield, 2009).
Systematic review applies a search methodology that “makes use of an iterative and
incremental procedure in which relevant articles were searched, checked and reviewed
for relevance until the whole review is completed” (Choong, 2013, p. 4176). Denyer and
Tranfield (2009) offer five basic steps, which are similar to those used in content analysis
and which we have adopted accordingly:
(1) Research question: The first step was to define the research question as
discussed above.
(2) Material collection: In the second step, the material was collected. This required
the selection of databases and definition of search criteria (see Section 2.3).
(3) Selection and evaluation: The evaluation of the relevant papers followed
structural categories that allowed the identification of relevant themes and
interpretation of findings. To perform a comprehensive search for gathering the
most relevant articles on sustainability reporting, we did not exclude any
keywords, journals or research disciplines from our search a priori. The decision
to include or exclude studies was made upon screening the articles’ abstracts (see
Section 2.4).
(4) Descriptive analysis and synthesis: Delivering valid results requires a discussion
of formal aspects (Section 3) with regard to the selected and evaluated material.
The aim of this analysis is to arrange the individual results of the respective
articles into consistent parts by describing how each relates to the other.
Therefore, a set of information for each article (e.g. general details such as
author, title, type of study or context) was noted.
(5) Results: To complete the systematic review, we provide a discussion of the
findings that yields a description of what is known and unknown about the
questions addressed in the systematic review (see Section 4). Additionally, a
discussion of the limitations of this study and future areas of research is
necessary (see Section 5).

2.3 Selection of databases and definition of search criteria

To identify and cover a wide range of research so as to ensure valid results, we
performed a comprehensive database analysis drawing on several databases. For this
purpose, we identified four major databases that include management-related journals:
EBSCO Business Source Complete (nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed journals in the
management field), Emerald Insight (approximately 300 management journals),
ECONIS (more than 1,700 leading international economic journals) and Web of Science
(more than 17,000 journals in various research fields). On the one hand, this procedure
SAMPJ ensures a wide selection because Web of Science is the most comprehensive database in
7,2 the field. On the other hand, we can be certain to have identified the relevant journals of
the discipline because of using EBSCO Business Source Complete and ECONIS.
Furthermore, it was necessary to make sure that the relevant sustainability-oriented
journals were included in the abovementioned databases. To ensure this, we tested the
databases by using the ranking of sustainability management journals issued by the
160 German Academic Association for Business Research in 2015. This association has
more than 2,200 members (experienced researchers) who work in business research. All
of these members are involved in ranking the major business journals worldwide. The
ranking is divided into 22 sub-rankings for different research areas (e.g. sustainability
management). The sub-ranking of sustainability management journals includes 31
international journals that publish research in the field of sustainability management
(see Table AI). The databases used cover all 31 peer-reviewed journals. By relying on
this ranking, we are quite confident that we have captured almost all relevant empirical
studies on topics related to sustainability reporting. The ranking can further be
considered to be current as it was published in 2015. Because including another ranking
system would not have enhanced our database substantially, we refrained from doing so
for reasons of research economy.
The systematic review of the existing research was conducted by using keywords
derived from prior research to cover the research field as comprehensively as possible
(Hahn and Kühnen, 2013). In practice, both sustainability reports and the research on
sustainability reporting regularly use various specific terms to characterise the
respective reports. A detailed search using the following keywords was executed
accordingly: “corporate social responsibility report*”, “Global Reporting Initiative
report*” or “sustainable development report*”, “sustainability report*”, “triple bottom
line report*” as well as the respective abbreviations “CSR report*”, “GRI report*” or
“TBL report*”. We also conducted a search with the related keywords “disclosure”
instead of “report*”, which stands for “report” as well as for “reports” or “reporting”,
with the objective of covering an even broader scope. The search contained 32
keywords.

2.4 Screening process and search results

For the screening process, we defined screening criteria (see Section 2.3) and performed
a search by title because it is not likely that a study on sustainability reporting would not
use any of the terms used for screening in its title. The overall search in the four
databases, using the abovementioned keywords, resulted in 1,665 articles. The
databases include journals, book chapters and similar sources. In line with previous
systematic reviews (Seuring and Müller, 2008; Stechemesser and Guenther, 2012; Hahn
and Kühnen, 2013; Kolk et al., 2014), we excluded book reviews, editorial notes and
comments from our sample. We also eliminated duplicates, which were certain to occur
as a result of consulting several databases. To make sure that we would capture all
relevant papers published up to 2014, we performed our search in mid-2015. Thus, in
April 2015 the latest search resulted in a basic population of 516 articles. Each paper was
screened with the objective of including only papers relevant with respect to
sustainability reporting.
Generally, the existing studies can be classified according to the sustainability
dimensions considered (environmental, economic and social topics). According to
Elkington (1997), the use of all three dimensions is described as the TBL approach (see Drivers of
Section 2.1). While more recent research generally follows this threefold differentiation sustainability
and thus illuminates all aspects of sustainability accordingly, older studies are limited to
only one of the two non-financial dimensions. Therefore, articles were excluded if they
reporting
fail to address all three dimensions of sustainability reporting. In this vein, especially
older studies that focus exclusively on social or environmental reporting were excluded.
Studies dealing with integrated reporting were omitted as well. Compared with 161
sustainability reporting, the intention of integrated reporting is much broader. It is not
just a reporting tool but rather an instrument in support of a holistic approach to
management decisions (integrated thinking). Therefore, we have excluded studies with
a too narrow focus (Fifka, 2012, 2013) as well as studies that are devoted to reporting that
is too comprehensive for the purpose of our review (Frias-Aceituno et al., 2014).
Furthermore, some of the excluded studies have a focus on non-financial reporting and
make only marginal mention of sustainability concerns (Cohen et al., 2012). We included
a study only if the publication date was later than 2000, the year of the publication of the
first GRI sustainability guidelines. This results in a period of 16 investigated publication
years (2000-2015) and a total of 316 (⫽ n) articles that we identified as essential for
inclusion in the following systematic review. Figure 1 shows the process of selection and
evaluation of the relevant articles.

2.5 Limitations and accuracy of the method

Without doubt, the applied research process and methodology are not without
limitations. Denyer and Tranfield (2009) suggest that systematic reviews have to follow

Figure 1.
Process of selection
and evaluation of
relevant articles
SAMPJ four principles to succeed. This requires that they have to be tested for their
7,2 transparency, inclusivity, explanatory power and heuristic nature.
Transparency is established by providing a detailed description of selecting
databases, keywords and screening criteria. It is additionally supported by ensuring
objectivity (Saunders et al., 2012). For this reason, we performed our systematic review
by relying on a structured process. Although we used four databases to minimise the
162 risk of excluding relevant journals, the respective selection of databases as well as the
concentration on international articles written in English can be seen as a limitation.
However, we followed the recommendation of Wallace and Wray (2006) to use a quality
rating of journals. Thus, we applied the German Academic Association for Business
Research’s ranking of sustainability management journals to ensure that all relevant
sustainability reporting studies were included in the selected databases. Basing our
review on high-impact, peer-reviewed journals should therefore ensure validity
(Podsakoff et al., 2005). Furthermore, English is widely used in management, accounting
and reporting contexts because of its dominance in science so that it is highly
improbable that our focus on articles published in English will have led us to omit
crucial results (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013). By considering a time horizon spanning 16
years, we are confident to have covered the relevant sustainability reporting studies
relating to all three sustainability or CSR dimensions that have been conducted since the
publication of the GRI guidelines. Although we reduced the risk of omitting relevant
studies by using similar keywords to the ones used in prior studies (Hahn and Kühnen,
2013), expanding the search by adding other keywords could lead to a broader sample of
studies.
Inclusivity describes the fact that we analysed the located articles carefully with the
objective of arriving at a reliable selection of articles within the scope of our research
question (Boaz and Ashby, 2003). This was to be accomplished by defining the search
criteria such that any researcher applying the criteria to the same raw data would
achieve the same results (Saunders et al., 2012). Accordingly, each of the three
researchers involved in the project analysed the field separately to ensure
intersubjective results (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). This procedure provided a
safeguard against problems arising from uncertainty about the categorisation of the
studies and yielded a mostly consistent categorisation. Despite the fact that other
researchers might come to divergent results, we refrained from expanding the research
team by involving additional researchers, given the time-consuming nature of the
process and the time constraints of the project.
The explanatory power of descriptive information from individual studies can be
tapped by extracting this information and organising it according to a (new) structure
(Hammersley, 2004). Therefore, the interpretive and explanatory syntheses in this
systematic review reaches beyond a descriptive reporting of evidence and can be seen as
conceptual innovation and reinterpretation (Campbell et al., 2003) while attempting to
preserve the content of the original study. In this sense, our systematic review brings the
results from individual studies together “to make a whole that should be more than the
sum of the parts” (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009) and is directly linked to generalisation
while taking possible loss of information into account. Although our extensive search
using multiple databases and search criteria covers the research field comprehensively,
our findings cannot be transferred to findings other than the genuine research results
(Saunders et al., 2012).
 Finally, the last principle describes that the output produced by a systematic review Drivers of
can be expected to be of a heuristic nature. “A heuristic rule may help in solving a sustainability
problem, but is not guaranteed to provide a detailed solution of a specific problem”
(Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Similar to the principle of explanatory power, our findings
reporting
are likely to suggest guidelines, rules or recommendations and not detailed solutions. In
this sense, the findings can serve to develop knowledge that managers can apply in
designing solutions to the problems in their field (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). 163

3. Descriptive analysis
In the first step, the bibliographic data of each paper were noted. This involved the
author(s), year of publication, title and journal. We found a total of 316 studies that are
related to sustainability reporting. Figure 2 shows that the number of studies has grown
since 2000. Up until 2007, the number was always lower than ten annually, whereas
there was a constant increase thereafter. Since 2011, the number has stabilised around
50. The low number for 2015 refers to only the first month of this year.
The next step was to classify the type of study by reading the abstracts of these
papers. There are different lines of research on sustainability reporting that show a wide
range of different research interests:
• Literature reviews describe the current state of research, whereas systematic
reviews aim to gain a more generalisable perspective beyond the results of single
studies.
• Theoretical studies refer to critical analyses without any substantial empirical
focus that are mostly based on theories or are of a more normative nature or
constitute legally oriented studies.
• Analytical studies include mathematical models designed to optimise a given
situation. The results of these studies make it possible to develop
recommendations to the regulator.
• Experimental studies under laboratory conditions use decision or interaction
structures. The test persons have to make decisions according to special set of
predetermined rules. This method seeks to observe the behaviour of test persons
in a given situation.

Figure 2.
Year of publication
SAMPJ • Survey and interview studies use questionnaires or (structured) interviews to
7,2 gather data about sustainability reporting practices or motivations.
• Diffusion analysis investigates the diffusion of sustainability reporting or the
application of standards (e.g. GRI standards).
• Content analysis focuses on the content of sustainability reports. These studies
164 often address different industries and/or different countries.
• Case studies normally make observations or collect data for one single or a small
number of organisations. The sustainability reporting cases are often based on
content analyses.
• Determinants studies are devoted to identifying determinants that explain why
organisations report on sustainability or factors that explain the extent and/or
quality of reporting. While some studies measure the extent of reporting by the
quantity of information, others the quality of reporting by disclosure scores (level
of fulfilment). We aimed to identify these studies by using the systematic review
approach to answer our research question: what are the drivers of sustainability
reporting that are identified in empirical research?
• Effect studies mostly use regressions on the basis of externally available data to
investigate influence factors or effects on the issues in question. There are, for
example, some studies that analyse the effect of sustainability reporting (on the
basis of disclosure scores) on capital markets or capital costs.
• There are some other studies that refer to sustainability reporting but do not focus
on issues of reporting specifically. These studies have different objects. For
example, some of them focus on assurance of sustainability reports, on
sustainability reporting standards or on the standard setter.

The characterisation of the sustainability reporting studies was not unambiguous in

every case. Some studies used a mixed-methods approach. For example, they performed
a content analysis and a supplementary survey. For the studies using a mixed-methods
approach, we identified the dominant method by reviewing the abstracts.
Figure 3 shows the frequency of the different types of studies according to our
classification system. Most of the studies that refer to sustainability reporting applied
content analysis and looked at different industries and/or countries (26.9 per cent). Case
studies (9.8 per cent) are often also based on content analysis, so that approximately 36.7

Figure 3.
Frequency of types
of studies
per cent of all studies deal with the content of sustainability reports. We found 48 Drivers of
determinant studies and 56 other studies (15.2 and 17.7 per cent, respectively). sustainability
Furthermore, we encountered 38 theoretical studies (12.0 per cent), 21 survey and
interview studies (6.3 per cent), 18 effect and influence studies (5.7 per cent), 13 diffusion
reporting
analyses (4.1 per cent) and 6 systematic and literature reviews (1.9 per cent). There are no
analytical studies and only one experimental study (0.3 per cent).
Of the journals that published the 48 determinants studies, five included more than 165
just one study: the Journal Business Strategy and the Environment, the Journal
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management and the Pacific
Accounting Review published three studies and the Journal of Business Ethics and the
Management International Review published two studies each.

4. Analysis and synthesis

4.1 Systematisation of determinants
The further review considers the above-mentioned 48 studies that analysed
determinants of sustainability reporting. In the next sections, we want to demonstrate
and discuss the broadness of the approaches used in the literature on determinants.
Nevertheless, we had to introduce further constraints. Studies were excluded if they
examined determinants of sustainability reporting but did not analyse CSR reporting as
a dependent variable (Lu et al., 2015; Carnevale and Mazzuca, 2014; Saleh et al., 2010).
The dependent variables under consideration could take the form of binary variables as
well as different types of CSR disclosure scores. We have indicated the method of
measuring the variables of the primary studies in Table AII. We found two different
approaches to measuring the dependent variables: disclosure scores [e.g. GRI disclosure
score, CSR disclosure score, CSR disclosure (quality) score and sustainability disclosure
score] and dummy variables that indicate whether or not a sustainability report was
issued to measure differences in the determinants of sustainability reporting between
reporting and non-reporting institutions. It is obvious that all studies measure the
construct of sustainability reporting differently. Thus, the differences in the
measurement are not surprising. As we did not perform a meta-analysis but a
systematic review, we argue that the use of both measures is appropriate to demonstrate
and discuss the broadness of the approaches used in the literature. Whereas a dummy
variable differentiates reporting and non-reporting companies according to the specific
determinants of sustainability reporting, a high or low CSR disclosure score
differentiates organisations by their sustainability reporting determinants as well.
Some determinants have not been addressed more than once in previous studies. We
only included independent variables in the following analysis if there are more than
three studies that considered the respective independent variable. Therefore, variables
that were measured only in a single study, such as sustainability performance (Herbohn
et al., 2014) or liquidity (Ho and Taylor, 2007), were not considered. A further study by
Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2015) examined other accounting-related determinants such as
earnings management measured by accruals, accounting conservatism or accruals
quality. Another study investigated sustainability reporting to some extent, but its main
focus was on integrated reporting (Jensen and Berg, 2012). Furthermore, we defined
firms as the object of examination. For this reason, we excluded studies that deal with
the sustainability reporting of public sector entities as well (Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al.,
2014; Kaur and Lodhia, 2014; Joseph and Taplin, 2011; Joseph et al., 2011).
SAMPJ We made further restrictions in regard to determinants related to country and
7,2 industry. Although we identified several studies that examined country-specific
determinants, we did not include them in our analysis because each one measures this
differently. Whereas Wanderley et al. (2008) as well as Fortanier et al. (2011), for
instance, examined country-of-origin issues, Chen and Bouvain (2009) checked for an
association between a country belonging to the Global Compact alliance and CSR
166 disclosure. Chapple and Moon (2005) primarily analysed globalisation issues. Farook
et al. (2011) analysed topics related to political and civil repression or the proportion of
Muslims in a country, while Perez-Batres et al. (2012) studied Mexico-related topics.
Specific industries are under high coercive as well as high normative pressure to
maintain their legitimacy (Young and Marais, 2012). However, we also refrained from
further examining industry determinants because of the different approaches applied in
measuring this construct. Young and Marais (2012), for instance, applied an
industry-classification system, adopted from FTSE4Good. Whereas Christopher and
Filipovic (2008) have a narrow definition of sustainability-related industries (materials,
industrials and energy sectors), Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) have a wide definition
(forestry, pulp and paper, mining, oil and gas, utilities, construction and building
materials, chemicals and synthetics or transport).
Finally, we examined 33 studies that deal with determinants of CSR disclosure
(Table AII). Figure 4 shows the geographical spread of the countries analysed in these
studies by continent: 14 cover Asian countries, 12 studies focus on European countries, 11 on
North America (only the USA), 4 on Australia and 1 study covers an African setting. Nine
studies address more than one continent. Twenty-two studies analyse companies in every
industry, whereas five studies focus only on non-financial companies (Li et al., 2013a, 2013b;
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2012, 2009; Lim et al., 2008). Furthermore, three studies specifically
examine banks in the USA (Jizi et al., 2014), Pakistan (Sharif and Rashid, 2014) and Malaysia
(Khan, 2010), while one study investigates shipping companies mainly in the USA and

1
4

14

11

12
Figure 4.
Country distribution
of studies included Asian countries European countries North America Australia North Africa
Europe (Drobetz et al., 2014) and another concentrates on companies in manufacturing Drivers of
(Khasharmeh and Suwaidan, 2010). sustainability
We collected the independent variables considered in these studies. Although some
control variables show parallels to independent variables, we only observed independent
reporting
variables because the investigation of these variables was based on the hypotheses in the
individual studies. The seven determinants investigated were included in 33 of the studies
referred to and were operationalised by means of 33 variables (see Table I). 167
4.2 Firm size
Firm size is a determinant used in 18 studies (Andrikopoulos et al., 2014, Drobetz et al.,
2014; Shamil et al., 2014; Sharif and Rashid, 2014; Li et al., 2013a, 2013b; Wang et al.,
2013; Bayoud et al., 2012a; Fernando and Pandey, 2012; Vitezić et al., 2012; Rouf, 2011;

Determinant Operationalisation

Firm size Number of employees

Market capitalisation
Balance sheet total
Number of operative segments
Number of geographic segments
Market value of equity
Profitability Earnings before interest and taxes margin (EBIT margin)
Earnings per share
Return on invested capital (ROIC)
Return on assets (ROA)
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on year end
Profit margin
Revenue
Capital structure Ratio of book value of debt over book value of equity
Total debt over total assets
Recently incorporated equity and debt
Media visibility Number of journal articles and magazines
Number of Handelsblatt newspaper ranking
Corporate governance structure Number of meetings of board of directors
Number of meetings of audit board
Number of board meetings
Number of audit committee meetings
Number of independent board members
Existence of sustainability board
Existence of governance board
CEO duality
Ownership structure % of ordinary shares held by shareholders other than the top 20
% of shares held by largest shareholder
Free float
Foreign ownership
Presence of a physical person that exercises control Table I.
Firm age Number of years since the firm’s inception Systematisation of
Total 33 variables the determinants
SAMPJ Dilling, 2010; Khan, 2010; Khasharmeh and Suwaidan, 2010; Morhardt, 2010;
7,2 Christopher and Filipovic, 2008; Ghazali, 2007; Ho and Taylor, 2007). Andrikopoulos
et al. (2014), Drobetz et al. (2014), Shamil et al. (2014), Sharif and Rashid (2014), Wang
et al. (2013), Bayoud et al. (2012a), Vitezić et al. (2012), Rouf (2011) as well as Khan (2010)
and Khasharmeh and Suwaidan (2010) found a positive association between firm size
and CSR disclosure measured by balance sheet total. Li et al. (2013b), Fernando and
168 Pandey (2012), Christopher and Filipovic (2008) and Ghazali (2007) found a significant
influence of market capitalisation on CSR disclosure. With respect to market value of
equity, Ho and Taylor (2007) found a significant influence of such value on CSR
disclosure, while Morhardt (2010) could prove only a partial influence of revenues.
Dilling (2010) did not observe any effect of market share, market capitalisation, number
of segments and employees, and Rouf (2011) did not detect any influence of total sales on
CSR disclosure. Furthermore, there is no study indicating a negative effect of firm size.
In all the studies included, either a positive size effect on sustainability reporting
behaviour was measured or no effect at all. Therefore, the results indicate a positive
tendency in the relation between firm size and CSR disclosure.
Because none of the studies yielded results to the contrary, the results indicate that
firm size is a driver of sustainability reporting. These observations can be explained by
larger companies having stronger incentives to issue voluntary reports. Specifically,
capital market-oriented companies are subject to public scrutiny and, therefore, must
deal with concerns about their reputation. This exposes large companies to greater
pressure to publish sustainability information to meet the informational needs of the
stakeholders and the capital market. Furthermore, the costs of reporting are lower for
large companies since the expenses of preparing a sustainability report tend to decrease
as firm size increases (Ho and Taylor, 2007).
Sustainability information tends to be withheld by smaller- and medium-sized
companies, possibly because of their greater sensitivity to competition, which would
explain their lower reporting rate. It also must be considered that smaller companies
might lack the capacity to maintain their own sustainability departments and, therefore,
cannot report in as much detail. For smaller companies, sustainability reporting is
rather uneconomical from a cost/benefit point of view, and there are also concerns about
releasing confidential data. In this context, it would seem obvious to suggest that the
scope of reporting under the GRI directives should be adjusted for small- and
medium-sized companies (GRI, 2014). Although a reduction of reporting requirements
might encourage them to provide sustainability reports, any reduction in the scope of
reporting would limit their comparability and usefulness to the addressees.

4.3 Profitability
Profitability is a determinant used to explain reporting behaviour in 17 of the studies
considered (Andrikopoulos et al., 2014; Drobetz et al., 2014; Marquis and Qian, 2014;
Sharif and Rashid, 2014; Li et al., 2013a, 2013b; Bayoud et al., 2012b; Fernando and
Pandey, 2012; Vitezić et al., 2012; Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Michelon, 2011; Dilling, 2010;
Khan, 2010; Khasharmeh and Suwaidan, 2010; Christopher and Filipovic, 2008; Ghazali,
2007; Ho and Taylor, 2007). Company performance is operationalised in different ways,
and there is no agreement on how to assess corporate success.
Sharif and Rashid (2014), Vitezić et al. (2012) and Khan (2010) found a positive
relationship between return on equity (ROE) and CSR disclosure, although Li et al.
(2013b) observed a negative one. By contrast, the results of Andrikopoulos et al. (2014) as Drivers of
well as Michelon (2011) show no significant impact of ROE on CSR disclosure. In terms sustainability
of ROA, Marquis and Qian (2014) and Vitezić et al. (2012) observed a positive influence
on CSR disclosure. By comparison, Drobetz et al. (2014) found only a marginal
reporting
association, while Ho and Taylor (2007) even discovered a significant negative
relationship between ROA and CSR disclosure. Li et al. (2013b) measured a positive
effect of return on year end on CSR disclosure. Bayoud et al. (2012b) found a positive and 169
significant relationship between CSR reporting and profitability (ROA, ROE and
revenues). Regarding ROA and ROE, Fernando and Pandey (2012) found no influence on
CSR reporting. For earnings before interest and taxes margin, Christopher and Filipovic
(2008) found a positive impact. Other variables such as earnings per share (Khasharmeh
and Suwaidan, 2010), return on invested capital (Gamerschlag et al., 2011) or profit
margin (Dilling, 2010; Ghazali, 2007) do not affect CSR disclosure. Therefore, an
influence of profitability on CSR disclosure can not be confirmed.
Theoretically, it is possible to derive a positive correlation between corporate success
and sustainability reporting because managers of profitable companies tend to publish
additional information to signal success in the capital market. Thus, there is proof that
corporate success is not achieved at the expense of stakeholder needs or the company as
a whole (Ho and Taylor, 2007). In addition, more profitable companies have greater
financial resources to fund voluntary reporting, so that they can be expected to be more
willing to assume the additional costs of producing and publishing a sustainability
report (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). Furthermore, the literature also contains arguments
that sustainability reporting may lead to “greenwashing” (Boiral, 2013). Greenwashing
refers to companies concealing corporate practices that are questionable in terms of
sustainability or showcasing routine operating procedures as sustainability
performance. Hence, companies with low social standards or a reckless environmental
policy might use their sustainability report as a marketing tool. In summary, it appears
that a company’s profitability can affect the quantity of sustainability reporting both
positively and negatively.

4.4 Capital structure

Eight studies examined the connection between capital structure and sustainability
reporting (Andrikopoulos et al., 2014; Drobetz et al., 2014; Sharif and Rashid, 2014; Li
et al., 2013b; Dilling, 2010; Khasharmeh and Suwaidan, 2010; Christopher and Filipovic,
2008; Ho and Taylor, 2007). Andrikopoulos et al. (2014) as well as Sharif and Rashid
(2014) showed that the ratio of book value of debt over book value of equity correlates
with CSR disclosure. For total debt over balance sheet total, Li et al. (2013b) as well as
Christopher and Filipovic (2008) found a positive correlation with CSR disclosure. Ho
and Taylor (2007) arrived at the opposite result: they observed a significant negative
relationship. Furthermore, Drobetz et al. (2014) found a negative association, whereas
the results of Dilling (2010) and Khasharmeh and Suwaidan (2010) show that neither
recently incorporated equity and debt nor the debt ratio are significant. These
inconsistent results make it impossible to draw any reliable conclusion as to the
tendency of the relationship.
As few studies have examined the connection between reporting behaviour and
capital structure, it is evident that sustainability reporting not only concerns
shareholders or capital providers but that it also affects stakeholders without capital
SAMPJ involvement. Furthermore, companies with an increased capital demand should have a
7,2 greater interest in providing information on sustainability to capital providers.

4.5 Media visibility

Four studies analysed determinants of media visibility such as number of hits in
journals and magazines (Wang et al., 2013; Michelon, 2011; Kent and Monem, 2008) or
170 hits in specific newspaper rankings (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). All four found a positive
correlation. Kent and Monem (2008) and Wang et al. (2013) even determined a significant
positive association between CSR disclosure and media visibility. Therefore, the results
suggest a positive relation between media visibility and CSR disclosure.
This correlation can be explained by the affected companies facing larger
justificatory pressures, with firm size and media visibility correlating positively.
Companies should be interested in informing their stakeholders to avoid negative media
reports and a loss of reputation. The more sensitively the media reacts to the activities of
a company, the more susceptible that company is to public pressure. The preparation of
a comprehensive sustainability report might serve as preventive action. This might be
an argument that speaks for a positive correlation between media visibility and
sustainability reporting (Gamerschlag et al., 2011). This positive correlation could be
explained by the aspect that the companies subject to greater media visibility face a
larger group of stakeholders that can exert pressure and whose information needs they
must meet. Companies that address a wide public through various information channels
can also be attributed a pioneering function, so that they almost have an obligation to act
in a sustainable manner.

4.6 Corporate governance structure

The connection between the design of corporate governance systems and a suitable
reporting behaviour of companies was examined in 16 studies (Amran et al., 2014;
Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Shamil et al., 2014; Jizi et al., 2014; Herda et al., 2013; Sharif
and Rashid, 2014; Li et al., 2013b; Faisal et al., 2012; Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Rouf,
2011; Dilling, 2010; Khan, 2010; Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009; Said et al., 2009; Kent and
Monem, 2008; Lim et al., 2008). Various determinants were considered in this respect,
such as independent board members (Amran et al., 2014; Jizi et al., 2014; Shamil et al.,
2014; Herda et al., 2013; Faisal et al., 2012; Sharif and Rashid, 2014; Li et al., 2013b; Rouf,
2011; Khan, 2010; Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009; Said et al., 2009; Kent and Monem, 2008),
size of the board of directors as measured by the number of board members (Amran
et al., 2014; Shamil et al., 2014; Jizi et al., 2014; Kent and Monem, 2008), number of board
meetings (Kent and Monem, 2008), number of women on the board (Amran et al., 2014;
Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Shamil et al., 2014, Khan, 2010) or chief executive officer
(CEO) duality (Shamil et al., 2014; Jizi et al., 2014; Kent and Monem, 2008; Said et al., 2009;
Lim et al., 2008).
Although a notable amount of studies show increased research activities, they have
yielded only a few noteworthy results. While Jizi et al. (2014), Herda et al. (2013), Sharif
and Rashid (2014), Rouf (2011) and Khan (2010) found a positive relationship between
CSR disclosure and board independence, Amran et al. (2014), Shamil et al. (2014), Faisal
et al. (2012) or Said et al. (2009) could find no such correlation. Li et al. (2013b) even
observed a negative influence of board independence on CSR reporting. Furthermore,
Shamil et al., 2014 and Jizi et al. (2014) also found a positive association between the
number of board members and CSR reporting, whereas Amran et al. (2014) did not Drivers of
observe any such influence. With regard to CEO duality, Jizi et al. (2014) and Shamil et al. sustainability
(2014) found a positive correlation with CSR disclosure, while Lim et al., 2008 found a
negative effect and Said et al. (2009) could not detect any influence at all. Whereas
reporting
Amran et al. (2014) and Khan (2010) did not find any evidence for an effect of gender
diversity on CSR reporting, Shamil et al. (2014) even discovered a negative influence.
Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014) determined that the level of CSR disclosure is higher in 171
countries with a higher proportion of boards of directors with at least three female
members. Another possible aspect of board composition, namely, the presence of foreign
nationals, was analysed by Sharif and Rashid (2014), but they could not find any
influence on CSR disclosure. Prado-Lorenzo et al. (2012) found a negative effect of
activist shareholder pressure on CSR disclosure. In this vein, the ratio of the number of
directors that represent active shareholders’ interests divided by the directors on the
board has a contradictory effect on CSR disclosure. Because of this negative impact, we
cannot assume the existence of a positive association between corporate governance in
terms of board composition and CSR disclosure.
There were also analyses with respect to several committees. Usually, this involved
analysing the impact of the existence of a sustainability committee (Amran et al., 2014;
Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Dilling, 2010; Kent and Monem, 2008). Amran et al.
(2014) and Kent and Monem (2008) found a positive and significant association, while
Michelon and Parbonetti (2012) found only a positive relation between the existence of
such a committee and CSR disclosure. Dilling (2010) did not find any relation at all.
Furthermore, the impact of an audit committee on CSR disclosure was analysed with
respect to the following factors: the existence of such a committee per se (Said et al.,
2009), the number of members (Dilling, 2010; Kent and Monem, 2008), the presence of
independent members on the audit committee (Kent and Monem, 2008) and the number
of meetings (Dilling, 2010; Kent and Monem, 2008). Although most variables did not
show any relation to CSR disclosure, the number of meetings of the audit committee
(Kent and Monem, 2008) as well as the existence of such a committee (Said et al., 2009)
are significantly positively associated in one study. In summary, the fact that no
negative relationships were measured indicates a positive association between board
composition as an indicator of corporate governance and CSR disclosure and between
the existence of sustainability or audit committees and CSR disclosure.
The sustainable alignment of a company can only be successful if appropriate
corporate governance systems and sustainability management are implemented in
the company at the same time. In this respect, the competitive benefit that companies
derive from their sustainability initiatives can only be achieved if they are incorporated
in the corporate governance framework and reporting. In this context, the inconsistent
effects that we observed are not really surprising because it is not easy to predict, for
instance, whether board size should be expected to have a positive or a negative effect on
CSR disclosure because both possibilities are conceivable.

4.7 Ownership structure

The fact that there are 12 studies that take ownership structure into consideration
attests to a substantial research interest in this factor (Drobetz et al., 2014; Li et al., 2013a,
2013b; Vitezić et al., 2012; Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Khan, 2010; Khasharmeh and
Suwaidan, 2010; Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009; Said et al., 2009; Christopher and Filipovic,
SAMPJ 2008; Lim et al., 2008; Ghazali, 2007). Christopher and Filipovic (2008), Li et al. (2013b) or
7,2 Said et al. (2009) found a significant positive relationship between CSR disclosure and
the percentage of ordinary shares that are held by shareholders other than the top 20, the
top 10 and the top 5 shareholders, respectively. By contrast, Ghazali (2007) did not
observe any influence of ownership concentration on CSR disclosure. Furthermore,
Drobetz et al. (2014) and Gamerschlag et al. (2011) showed a positive association for the
172 percentage of shares held by the largest shareholder and for the free float, respectively,
while Vitezić et al. (2012), Prado-Lorenzo et al. (2009) or Said et al. (2009) did not find such
a relationship for foreign ownership, the presence of financial institutions in the firms
ownership structure or the presence of a physical person that exercises control. With
regard to foreign ownership, only Khan (2010) observed a positive influence on CSR
disclosure. Whereas Said et al. (2009) and Ghazali (2007) found a positive association
between government ownership and CSR reporting, Li et al. (2013a, 2013b) and
Khasharmeh and Suwaidan (2010) observed no such influence. In fact, we did not find
any study that showed a negative impact. Therefore, the results indicate that the
association between ownership structure and CSR disclosure has a positive tendency.

4.8 Firm age

Firm age measured by number of years since the firm’s inception was analysed in three
studies (Marquis and Qian, 2014; Shamil et al., 2014; Bayoud et al., 2012a). Marquis and
Qian (2014) and Shamil et al. (2014) found a negative correlation of firm size on CSR
disclosure. By contrast, Bayoud et al. (2012a) observed a positive relationship. Because
of these inconsistent results, making a reliable statement on the tendency of the
relationship is impossible.

5. Discussion and implications

This paper has systematically presented the state of empirical research on
sustainability reporting and analysed drivers of sustainability reporting using a
qualitative approach. We have intended to demonstrate and discuss the broadness of the
approaches used in the literature. A comprehensive search was performed by using 32
keywords in four common databases. We have identified a sample of 516 studies related
to sustainability reporting that were published in English journals and investigated 316
articles in detail that were published between 2000 and 2015. Our study covers a much
larger sample and a longer investigation period compared to prior studies such as Hahn
and Kühnen (2013), for instance, who analysed only 178 studies of this kind. Our
analysis also differs from previous research in that we apply a comprehensive concept of
sustainability reporting that considers the economic, environmental and social
dimension and not just sustainability-related reporting (e.g. social and/or environmental
reporting and integrated reporting). The reporting behaviour of firms is likely to change
in response to the requirements of their corporate and societal environment. An
explanation for the observed increase in sustainability reporting could be that, whereas
early environmental or social reporting was primarily a matter of companies strongly
committed to the idea of sustainability because of operating in a sustainability-related
sector, current sustainability reporting has become common practice for many more
firms because their competitors issue such reports as well or society expects firms to
report on sustainability performance, regardless of their sector affiliation. In this
context, our methodological approach ensures that we have given a current overview of
the research field of sustainability reporting that has not been influenced by Drivers of
environmental and social reporting. sustainability
First, we have contributed an up-to-date overview of the research landscape in the field of reporting
sustainability reporting that delivers interesting insights and recommendations for future
research. Our analysis of this research landscape has shown considerable growth in the
amount of studies over the past years. The most frequently used methodological approach
has been content analysis (85 studies), although there has also been an increasing interest in 173
research on the determinants of sustainability reporting (48 studies). In contrast to case
studies, theoretical studies, survey and interview studies, effect and influence studies,
diffusion analyses and systematic and literature reviews, there has been an extremely small
number of experimental (one) and analytical (none) studies. More research in these
methodological areas could deliver beneficial results. Analytical studies could include
mathematical models designed to optimise a given situation. In the context of sustainability
reporting, such models could be devised for the purpose of developing decision rules. For
example, such rules could outline the aspects of sustainability to be addressed in such a
report given certain secondary conditions. A research design of this kind could involve
experimental studies under laboratory conditions using specific decision or interaction
structures. The test persons would have to make reporting decisions according to a special
set of predetermined rules. This method seeks to observe the behaviour of test persons in a
given situation. In the context of sustainability reporting, it could be interesting to design an
experiment that investigates the decision behaviour of investors.
Second, we have focused on the determinants of sustainability reporting and contributed
a range of new results. Most of these studies were found for the continental regions Asia,
Europe and North America. Only four studies were found for Australia, one for Africa and
none for South America. Especially the last two continental regions have hardly been
investigated. Therefore, it would be interesting to focus on these regions.
We analysed seven determinants in detail (firm size, profitability, capital structure, media
visibility, corporate governance structure, ownership structure and firm age) that were
operationalised by 33 different variables (Table I). Their relevance for sustainability
reporting has been examined (also see Appendix). This has allowed us to expand the often
limited focus of the individual studies. The analysis and synthesis has summarised the
results on determinants of previous studies systematically and has provided an overview of
factors that determine the companies’ sustainability reporting. Some of our results confirm
the findings of prior systematic reviews. In accordance with Hahn and Kühnen (2013), for
instance, we noticed a positive effect of company size and media visibility as well as
inconsistent and ambiguous findings regarding the effect of profitability and capital
structure on sustainability reporting. In this regard, we share the opinion of Hahn and
Kühnen (2013, p. 19) that “the frequency of research on economic and financial performance
variables […] is distorted by personal interest of certain researchers”. While we found an
association between ownership structure and sustainability reporting in general, Hahn and
Kühnen (2013) could confirm such a relationship only for government and foreign
ownership, whereas concentrated ownership impedes sustainability reporting in their
study. We have gone beyond Hahn and Kühnen (2013) by additionally focusing on corporate
governance and firm age. However, these results are ambiguous. While corporate
governance seems to have an influence only on the existence of audit or sustainability
committees, board composition does not show a clear tendency in this respect. It is
SAMPJ impossible to make a reliable statement on the tendency of the relationship because of the
7,2 sparse and inconsistent results in regard to firm age.
It is apparent that companies only report on their sustainability activities if there is
an economic benefit derived from improved reputation, reduced capital costs or
alleviated public pressure. Therefore, it becomes clear that the selection of companies
might already lead to distorted results. For instance, the studies specifically consider
174 stock-listed companies because of the available data. This could lead to a bias towards
large companies, so that it is not easy to draw conclusions about the publication
behaviour of smaller companies. Thus, it is not surprising that firm size and media
visibility have an influence on CSR disclosure, as size can be considered to be linked with
media visibility (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013). Future research should investigate smaller
companies that are not or under lower media pressure.
Although there are some studies that analyse the determinants media visibility (four
studies) and firm age (three studies), these determinants are underrepresented. Thus,
future studies could improve the validity of results by focusing on these determinants.
Furthermore, future research should address determinants not considered in this study
because of the little attention paid to them in the primary studies – sustainability
performance or liquidity are cases in point. Future research might expand on our
findings concerning the use of different operationalisations of the determinants.
Regarding inconsistent results, further research on determinants referring to new
operationalisations and known ones could be used to improve their resilience.
Beyond these potentially interesting aspects for future research, the findings of our
systematic review have further implications for firms, standard setters, policymakers
and regulators. In regard to firms, our significant results concerning firm size and media
visibility confirm the perception that sustainability reporting is quasi-mandatory for
large firms, which are subject to high media visibility because of their size. The positive
influence of the existence of audit and sustainability committees on sustainability
reporting suggests that establishing such committees improves sustainability
reporting. Of course, this requires that these committees put an emphasis on
sustainability activities. For ownership structure, we cannot offer a similarly clear-cut
suggestion. The specific ownership structure could bias the likelihood of publishing a
sustainability report as well as the quality of such reporting and is thus a matter of
individual incentives. To promote sustainable development, policymakers and
regulators could think about making sustainability reporting mandatory because
currently only very large and media-visible firms prepare these reports on a voluntary
basis. Here, the question that policymakers face is whether they consider companies’
sustainability efforts to be sufficient or deem further regulatory steps necessary. Our
ambiguous results on corporate governance raise the question whether policymakers
could actually influence sustainability reporting either directly or indirectly. As far as
gender diversity is concerned, we predominantly found no effect on sustainability
reporting. However, because other studies have come to the opposite conclusion that
gender diversity does influence such reporting (Liao et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2012; Barako
and Brown, 2008), it should be interesting to investigate the impact of the most current
European Union (EU) regulation that proposes legislation “with the aim of attaining a 40
per cent objective of the under-represented sex in non-executive board-member
positions in publicly listed companies” (European Commission, 2015).
 There are further implications of the results, especially in regard to the EU non-financial Drivers of
reporting directive, the new GRI G4 sustainability guidelines or the International Integrated sustainability
Reporting Council (IIRC) framework. The EU directive obliges listed companies with an
average size of 500 employees to include a non-financial statement in their management
reporting
commentary by financial years after 31 December 2016. While standardised guidelines such
as the GRI (GRI, 2013) are gaining increasing momentum (Vormedal and Ruud, 2009), there
have been recent activities to develop an integrated reporting (IIRC, 2013) that also includes 175
some degree of sustainability information as well (Simnett and Huggins, 2015). As discussed
above, we did not include the more comprehensive integrated reporting in the systematic
review. So far, there have not been many studies on such reporting, but future research
should address its determinants and might adopt a similar approach in analysing it as we
have done here. Furthermore, it could be interesting to investigate whether integrated
reporting is able to close the gap between corporate financial performance and corporate
sustainability performance.
Beyond the methodological limitations of systematic reviews discussed above
(Section 2.5), a quantitative meta-analysis could, of course, enhance the validity of our
findings, but such an approach would require more homogenous primary studies to
yield valid findings. This considered, the more qualitative systematic review seems to
be the appropriate method to demonstrate and discuss the broadness of the approaches
in the literature. Against this backdrop, this paper has provided an overview of the
current research landscape in the field of sustainability reporting, analysed
determinants of sustainability reporting that are not influenced by environmental and
social reporting and outlined future research opportunities and implications for firms as
well as standard setters and policymakers.

References
Adams, C. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical
reporting: beyond current theorising”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223-250.
Adams, C. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-757.
Adams, C. (2013), “Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities:
challenges and benefits”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 384-392.
Adams, C. and Frost, G.R. (2006), “Accessibility and functionality of the corporate web site:
implications for sustainability reporting”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 275-287.
Adams, C. and Frost, G.R. (2008), “Integrating sustainability reporting into management
practices”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 288-302.
Adams, C. and McNicholas, P. (2007), “Making a difference: sustainability reporting,
accountability and organisational change”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 382-402.
Adams, C. and Whelan, G. (2009), “Conceptualising future change in corporate sustainability
reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 118-143.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S. (2014), “The influence of governance structure and strategic
corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 217-235.
SAMPJ Andrikopoulos, A., Samitas, A. and Bekiaris, M. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility reporting
in financial institutions: evidence from Euronext”, Research in International Business and
7,2 Finance, Vol. 32, pp. 27-35.
Arnold, M., Bassen, A. and Frank, R. (2012), “Integrating sustainability reports into financial
statements: an experimental Study”, Working Paper, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id⫽2030891 (accessed 23 April 2015).
176 Barako, D.G. and Brown, A.M. (2008), “Corporate social reporting and board representation:
evidence from the Kenyan banking sector”, Journal of Management and Governance,
Vol. 12, pp. 309-324.
Bayoud, N.S., Kavanagh, M. and Slaughter, G. (2012a), “Factors influencing levels of corporate
social responsibility disclosure by Libyan firms: a mixed study”, International Journal of
Economics and Finance, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 13-29.
Bayoud, N.S., Kavanagh, M. and Slaughter, G. (2012b), “An empirical study of the relationship
between corporate social responsibility disclosure and organizational performance:
evidence from Libya”, International Journal of Management and Marketing Research,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 69-82.
Bent, D. (2006), “Towards a monetised triple bottom line for an alcohol producer: using
stakeholder dialogue to negotiate a ‘licence to operate’ by constructing an account of social
performance”, in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting
and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 61-82.
Boaz, A. and Ashby, D. (2003), “Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based
policy and practice”, Working Paper, available at: www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/
politicaleconomy/research/cep/pubs/papers/assets/wp11.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Boiral, O. (2013), “Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A⫹ GRI
reports”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1036-1071.
Branco, M.C. and Delgado, C. (2011), “Research on corporate social responsibility and disclosure in
Portugal”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Brewerton, P. and Millward, L. (Eds) (2001), Organizational Research Methods, A Guide for
Students and Researchers, Sage Publications, London.
Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2010), “Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 829-846.
Campbell, D., Craven, B. and Shrives, P. (2003), “Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors:
a comment on perception and legitimacy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 558-581.
Carnevale, C. and Mazzuca, M. (2014), “Sustainability reporting and varieties of capitalism”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 361-376.
Cebrián, G., Grace, M. and Humphris, D. (2013), “Organisational learning towards sustainability in
higher education”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 385-306.
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: a seven-country
study of CSR web site reporting”, Business and Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-441.
Chen, S. and Bouvain, P. (2009), “Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of
corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 299-317.
Cho, C. Michelon, G., Patten, D.M. and Roberts, R.W. (2014), “CSR report assurance in the USA: an
empirical investigation of determinants and effects”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 130-148.
Choong, K.K. (2013), “Has this large number of performance measurement publications Drivers of
contributed to its better understanding? A systematic review for research and
applications”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 14, pp. 4174-4197.
sustainability
Christopher, T. and Filipovic, M. (2008), “The extent and determinants of disclosure of global
reporting
reporting initiative guidelines: Australian evidence”, The Journal of Contemporary Issues
in Business and Government, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 17-40.
Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. and Vasvari, F.P. (2008), “Revisiting the relation between 177
environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis”,
Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 33 Nos 4/5, pp. 303-327.
Cohen, J., Holder-Webb, L., Nath, L. and Wood, D. (2012), “Corporate reporting of non-financial
leading indicators of economic performance and sustainability”, Accounting Horizons,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 65-90.
Cormier, D. and Gordon, I.M. (2001), “An examination of social and environmental reporting
strategies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 587-616.
Cormier, D., Magnan, M. and Van Velthoven, B. (2005), “Environmental disclosure quality in large
German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions?”,
European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-39.
Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Frías-Aceituno, J. and Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2014), “The role of media
pressure on the disclosure of sustainability information by local governments”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 114-135.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D. and
Bryman, A. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 671-689.
Dilling, P. (2010), “Sustainability reporting in a global context: what are the characteristics of
corporations that provide high quality sustainability reports – an empirical analysis”,
International Business & Economic Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Drobetz, W., Merikas, A. and Merika, A. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility disclosure: the
case of international shipping”, Transportation Research: An International Journal, Vol. 71,
pp. 18-44.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), “Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 130-141.
Ebinger, F., Cahyandito, M.F., von Dettern, R. and Schlüter, A. (2006), “Just a paper tiger?
Exploration of sustainability reporting as a corporate communication instrument”, in
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds) Sustainability Accounting and Reporting,
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 511-532.
Elkington, J. (Ed.) (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone, Oxford.
European Commission (2011), A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social
Responsibility, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri⫽COM:
2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed 23 April 2015).
European Commission (2014), Position of the European Parliament, available at: www.europarl.
europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef⫽-//EP//NONSGML⫹TC⫹P7-TC1-COD-2013-0110⫹
0⫹DOC⫹PDF⫹V0//EN (accessed 23 April 2015).
European Commission (2015), Women on Boards: Commission Proposes 40% Objective, available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/news/121114_en.htm (accessed
16 December 2015).
SAMPJ Faisal, F., Tower, G. and Rusmin, R. (2012), “Legitimising corporate sustainability reporting
throughout the world”, Australian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2,
7,2 pp. 19-34.
Farook, S., Hassan, M. and Lanis, R. (2011), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility
disclosure: the case of Islamic banks”, Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 114-141.
178 Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romerp, S. and Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014), “Women on boards: do they affect
sustainability reporting?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 351-364.
Fernando, A.A.J. and Pandey, I.M. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility reporting: a survey of
listed Sri Lankan companies”, Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship
Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 172-187.
Fifka, M.S. (2012), “The development and state of research on social and environmental reporting
in global comparison”, Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 45-84.
Fifka, M.S. (2013), “Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative
perspective – a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-35.
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A. and Pinske, J. (2011), “Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and global
CSR standards”, Management International Review, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 665-696.
Frias-Aceituno, J., Rodríguez-Ariza, L. and Garcia-Sánchez, I.M. (2014), “Explantory factors of
integrated sustainability and financial reporting”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K. and Verbeeten, F. (2011), “Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure:
empirical evidence from Germany”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 233-262.
Ghazali, N.A.M. (2007), “Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: some
Malaysian evidence”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2013), G4 Sustainability Guidelines, available at: www.
globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-
Disclosures.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2014), Ready to Report? Introducing Sustainability Reporting for
SMEs, available at: www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Ready-to-Report-SME-
booklet-online.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Gray, R. (2010), “A re-evaluation of social, environmental and sustainability accounting: an
exploration of an emerging trans-disciplinary field?”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-32.
Guan, J. and Noronha, C. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility reporting research in the Chinese
academia: a critical review”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Guidry, R.P. and Patten, D.M. (2010), “Market reactions to the first time issuance of corporate
sustainability reports: evidence that quality matters”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Hahn, R. and Kühnen, M. (2013), “Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results,
trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 59, pp. 5-21.
Hammersley, M. (2004), “Some questions about evidence-based practice in education”, in
Thomas, G. and Pring, R. (Eds), Evidence-Based Practice in Education, Open University
Press, Buckingham, pp. 133-149.
Herbohn, K., Walker, J. and Loo, H.Y.M. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility: the link between Drivers of
sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance”, ABACUS – A Journal of
Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 422-459.
sustainability
Herda, D., Taylor, M. and Winterbotham, G. (2013), “The effect of board independence on the
reporting
sustainability reporting practices of large US firms”, Issues in Social and Environmental
Accounting, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 25-44.
Herzig, C. and Schaltegger, S. (2006), “Corporate sustainability reporting. an overview”, in 179
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting,
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 301-324.
Herzig, C. and Schaltegger, S. (2011), “Corporate sustainability reporting”, in Godemann, J.,
Michelsen, G. (Eds), Sustainability Communication: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and
Theoretical Foundations, Springer, Berlin, pp. 151-170.
Ho, L. and Taylor, M. (2007), “An empirical analysis of triple bottom-line reporting and its
determinants: evidence from the United States and Japan”, Journal of International
Financial Management and Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 123-150.
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013), The International ⬍IR⬎ Framework,
available at: www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-
IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf (accessed 23 April 2015).
Jensen, J.C. and Berg, N. (2012), “Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus
integrated reporting: an institutionalist approach”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 299-316.
Jizi, M., Salama, A., Dixon, R. and Stratling, R. (2014), “Corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility disclosure: evidence from the US banking sector”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 125 No. 4, pp. 601-615.
Joseph, C. and Taplin, R. (2011), “The measurement of sustainability disclosure: abundance versus
occurrence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Joseph, C., Pilcher, R. and Taplin, R. (2011), “Malaysian local government internet sustainability
reporting”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 75-93.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S.K. (2014), “The state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement in
sustainability reporting in Australian local councils”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 26
Nos 1/2, pp. 54-74.
Kent, P. and Monem, R. (2008), “What drives TBL reporting: good governance or threat to
legitimacy?”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 297-309.
Khan, H.-U.-Z. (2010), “The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social
responsibility (CSR) reporting”, International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 82-109.
Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J. and Antes, G. (2003), “Five steps to conducting a systematic
review”, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 96, pp. 118-121.
Khasharmeh, H. and Suwaidan, M.S. (2010), “Social responsibility disclosure in corporate annual
reports: evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries”, International Journal of
Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 327-345.
Klovienė, L. and Speziale, M.-T. (2014), “Sustainability reporting as a challenge for performance
measurement: literature review”, Economics and Business, Vol. 26, pp. 44-53.
Kolk, A. (2003), “Trends in sustainability reporting by the fortune global 250”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 279-291.
Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M. and Rufin, C. (2014), “Reviewing a decade of research on the ‘base/
bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP) concept”, Business and Society, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 338-377.
SAMPJ Li, Q., Luo, W., Wang, Y. and Liansheng, W. (2013a), “Firm performance, corporate ownership,
and corporate social responsibility disclosure in China”, Business Ethics: A European
7,2 Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-173.
Li, Y., Zhang, J. and Foo, C.-T. (2013b), “Towards a theory of social responsibility reporting:
empirical analysis of 613 CSR reports by listed corporations in China”, Chinese
Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 519-534.
180 Liao, L., Luo, L. and Tang, Q. (2015), “Gender diversity, board independence, environmental
committee and greenhouse gas disclosure”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 409-424.
Lim, Y.Z., Talha, M., Mohamed, J. and Sallehhuddin, A. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility
disclosure and corporate governance in Malaysia”, International Journal of Behavioral
Accounting and Finance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 67-89.
Lodhia, S. (2015), “Exploring the transition to integrated reporting through a practice lens: an
Australian customer owned bank perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 129 No. 3,
pp. 585-598.
Lodhia, S. and Hess, N. (2014), “Sustainability accounting and reporting in the mining industry:
current literature and directions for future research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 84,
pp. 43-50.
Lodhia, S. and Jacobs, K. (2013), “The practice turn in environmental reporting: a study into
current practices in two Australian commonwealth departments”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 595-615.
Lozano, R. and Huisingh, D. (2011), “Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 99-107.
Lu, Y., Abeysekera, I. and Cortese, C. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility reporting quality,
board characteristics and corporate social reputation: evidence from China”, Pacific
Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 95-118.
Maijala, A. and Pohjola, T. (2006), “Web-based environmental management systems for SMEs:
enhancing the diffusion of environmental management in the transportation sector”, in
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting,
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 655-678.
Marquis, C. and Qian, C. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or
substance?”, Organization Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 127-148.
Martínez-Ferrero, J., Garcia-Sanchez, I. and Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. (2015), “Effect of financial
reporting quality on sustainability information disclosure”, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Michelon, G. (2011), “Sustainability disclosure and reputation: a comparative study”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 79-96.
Michelon, G. and Parbonetti, A. (2012), “The effects of corporate governance on sustainability
disclosure”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 477-509.
Mook, L. (2006), “Integrating and reporting an organisation’s economic, social and environmental
performance: the expanded value added statement”, in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and
Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 281-298.
Morhardt, E. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 436-452.
Murphy, D. and McGrath, D. (2013), “ESG reporting – class actions, deterrence, and avoidance”,
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 216-235.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research”, Accounting, Auditing & Drivers of
Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-860.
sustainability
Parker, L.D. (2011), “Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research: a
coming of age”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
reporting
Parker, L.D. (2014), “Constructing a research field: a reflection on the history of social and
environmental accounting”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 87-92. 181
Pérez, A. (2015), “Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 11-29.
Perez-Batres, L.A., Miller, V.V., Pisani, M.J., Henriques, I. and Renau-Sepulveda, J.A. (2012), “Why
do firms engage in national sustainability programs and transparent sustainability
reporting? Evidence from Mexico’s clean industry program”, Management International
Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2005), “The influence of
management journals in the 1980s and 1990s”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 473-488.
Prado-Lorenzo, J., Gallego-Álvarez, I. and María García-Sánchez, I. (2009), “Stakeholder
engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 94-107.
Prado-Lorenzo, J., María García-Sánchez, I. and Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2012), “Effects of activist
shareholding on corporate social responsibility reporting practices: an empirical study in
Spain”, Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative, Vol. 17 No. 32, pp. 7-16.
Rao, K.K., Tilt, C.A. and Lester, L.H. (2012), “Corporate governance and environmental reporting:
an Australian study”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 143-163.
Rouf, A. (2011), “The corporate social responsibility disclosure: a study of listed companies in
Bangladesh”, Business Economics Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 19-32.
Said, R., Zainuddin, Y.H. and Haron, H. (2009), “The relationship between corporate social
responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public
listed companies”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 212-226.
Saleh, M., Zulkifli, N. and Muhamad, R. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility disclosure and its
relation on institutional ownership: evidence from public listed companies in Malaysia”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 591-613.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (Eds) (2012), Research Methods for Business Students,
6th ed., Pearson Education, New York, NY.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2006), “Corporate sustainability accounting: a catchphrase for
compliant corporations or a business decision support for sustainability leaders?”, in
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting,
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 37-60.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006a), “Managing sustainability performance measurement and
reporting in an integrated manner: sustainability accounting as the link between the
sustainability balanced scorecard and sustainability reporting”, in Schaltegger, S.,
Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 681-698.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006b), “Integrative management of sustainability performance,
measurement and reporting”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and
Performance Evaluation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
SAMPJ Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
7,2 pp. 1699-1710.
Shamil, M., Shaikh, J., Ho, P.-L. and Krishnan, A. (2014), “The influence of board characteristics on
sustainability reporting: empirical evidence from Sri Lankan firms”, Asian Review of
Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 78-97.
182 Sharif, M. and Rashid, K. (2014), “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR)
reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan”, Quality &
Quantity, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 2501-2521.
Simnett, R. and Huggins, A.L. (2015), “Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research add
value?”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 29-53.
Stechemesser, K. and Guenther, E. (2012), “Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 36, pp. 17-38.
Thurm, R. (2006), “Taking the GRI to scale: towards the next generation of sustainability
reporting guidelines”, in Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burrit, R. (Eds), Sustainability
Accounting and Reporting, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 325-338.
Vitezić, N., Vuko, T. and Mörec, B. (2012), “Does financial performance have an impact on
corporate sustainability and CSR disclosure: a case of Croatian companies”, Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 5, pp. 48-55.
Vormedal, I. and Ruud, A. (2009), “Sustainability reporting in Norway – an assessment of
performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 207-222.
Wallace, M. and Wray, A. (Eds) (2006), Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates, Sage
Publications, London.
Wanderley, L.S.O., Lucian, R., Farache, F. and de Sousa Filho, J.M. (2008), “CSR information
disclosure on the web: a context-based approach analysing the influence of country of
origin and industry sector”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 369-378.
Wang, J., Song, L. and Yao, S. (2013), “The determinants of corporate social responsibility
disclosure: evidence from China”, The Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 1833-1848.
Windolph, S.E., Schaltegger, S. and Herzig, C. (2014), “Implementing corporate sustainability:
what drives the application of sustainability management tools in Germany?”,
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 378-404.
World Commission on Environment and Development (Ed.) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Young, S. and Marais, M. (2012), “A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: the implications of
national institutions and industry risk characteristics”, Corporate Governance: An
International Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 432-450.

Further reading
Simnett, R. (2012), “Assurance of sustainability reports: revision of ISAE 3000 and associated
research opportunities”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 89-98.

Corresponding author
Remmer Sassen can be contacted at: remmer.sassen@wiso.uni-hamburg.de
Appendix Drivers of
sustainability
1 Business & Society
reporting
2 Business and Society Review
3 Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ)
4 Business Ethics: A European Review
5 Business Strategy and the Environment 183
6 Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society
7 Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
8 Ecological Economics
9 Energy Economics
10 Energy Policy
11 International Journal of Energy Sector Management
12 International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development
13 International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management
14 Journal of Business Ethics
15 Journal of Cleaner Production
16 Journal of Consumer Affairs
17 Journal of Consumer Policy
18 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
19 Journal of Environmental Management
20 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
21 Journal of Global Responsibility
22 Journal of Industrial Ecology
23 Journal of Macromarketing Table AI.
24 Journal of World Business Journals related to
25 Organization & Environment sustainability
26 Resource and Energy Economics management and
27 Social and Environmental Accountability Journal ranked by the
28 Sustainability German Academic
29 Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal Association for
30 Sustainable Development Business Research
31 The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2015
 7,2

184

disclosure
SAMPJ

Table AII.
Studies that analyse
determinants of CSR
Year of Country sample investigation
publication Author(s) period Variable(s) CSR-variable(s) Results

2014 Amran, Lee and Devi 12 countries from Asia Pacific Board characteristics (size, independence, Sustainability Positive effect of the existence of a CSR
region 113 companies 2010 gender and existence of CSR committee) reporting quality committee to CSR reporting. No influence of
size, independence and gender proportion of a
board of directors to CSR disclosure
2014 Andrikopoulos, Several mainly European Firm growth (market-to-book value) CSR disclosure Firm size is positively related to CSR disclosure.
Samitas and Bekiaris countries (due to sample in Firm size (balance sheet total) index Firm leverage is also positively and
Euronext stock exchange) Firm leverage (ratio of book value of debt significantly related to CSR disclosure.
93 company websites over book value of equity) Profitability and firm growth do not show any
2009 Profitability [return on equity (ROE)] influence
2014 Drobetz, Merikas, Mainly USA and Europe Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR disclosure Firm size, firm growth and ownership structure
Merika and Tsionas 118 shipping companies Firm leverage (ratio of total liabilities index are positively related to CSR disclosure. In
(firms listed in NYSE, over equity) contrast, firm leverage is negatively related to
NASDAQ, London Stock Firm growth (market-to-book ratio) CSR disclosure. ROA has only a marginal effect
Exchange and Oslo Stock Ownership structure (% of stakes held by on CSR disclosure
Exchange) largest shareholder)
2002-2010 Profitability (ROA and ROE)

2014 Fernandez-Feijoo, 22 countries, mainly USA, Board characteristics (at least three CSR disclosure Countries with higher proportion of boards of
Romero and Europe and Australia, 350 women on board of directors) directors with at least three women show a
Ruiz-Blanco companies positive relation to CSR disclosure
2014 Marquis and Qian China Profitability (ROA) Dummy variable Positive affiliation of profitability on CSR
1,600 companies Firm age reporting. Negative effect of firm age on CSR
2006-2009 reporting
2014 Shamil, Shaikh, Ho Sri Lanka Board characteristics (size, gender and Dummy variable Positive association of board size and dual
and Krishnan 148 companies independence) leadership as well as firm size and firm growth
2012 Firm size (balance sheet total) to CSR reporting. Negative affect of boards with
Firm growth (market value of shares/ female directors as well as firm age to CSR
book value of equity) reporting. No association between CSR
Firm age disclosure and board independence
(continued)
Year of Country sample investigation
publication Author(s) period Variable(s) CSR-variable(s) Results

2014 Jizi, Salama, Dixon USA Board independence CSR disclosure Positive effect of independent directors, board
and Stratling 107 US listed commercial Board size quality score size and CEO duality on CSR disclosure
banks CEO duality
2009-2011
2013a Li, Luo, Wang and China Profitability (return on year-end) CSR disclosure Positive impact of profitability on CSR
Wu 1,574 non-financial listed Ownership structure (state ownership) score disclosure. No affiliation of state ownership on
firms CSR reporting
2008
2014 Sharif and Rashid Pakistan Board characteristics (non-executive CSR reporting Board independence, firm size, profitability as
22 commercial banks board directors and foreign nationals) items/score well as firm leverage have a positive influence
2005-2010 Firm size (balance sheet total) on CSR reporting. Foreign nationals in the
Profitability (ROE) board do not have any affiliation on CSR
Firm leverage (debt to equity ratio) reporting
2013 Herda, Taylor and USA, 500 companies 2008 Board independence Dummy variable Board independence is positively associated
Winterbotham with CSR disclosure
2013b Li, Zhang and Foo China Ownership structure [ownership CSR disclosure Positive influence of firm size, ownership
613 companies concentration (top five owners), state score concentration, firm leverage on CSR disclosure.
2009-2010 ownership] Negative effect of profitability and board
Firm size (market capitalisation) independence on CSR reporting. No influence of
Firm leverage (total debt/balance sheet state ownership on CSR disclosure
total)
Profitability (ROE)
Board independence
2013 Wang, Song and Yao China Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR disclosure Firm size and media visibility are positively
800 companies Media visibility score associated with CSR disclosure
2008
2012a Bayoud, Kavanagh Lybia Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR disclosure Positive relation between CSR disclosure and
and Slaughter 135 companies Firm age score firm size as well as firm age
2007-2009
2012b Bayoud, Kavanagh Lybia 135 companies Profitability (ROA, ROE and revenues) CSR disclosure Positive effect of profitability on CSR disclosure
and Slaughter 2007-2009 score
(continued)

Table AII.
185
reporting
sustainability
Drivers of
 7,2

186
SAMPJ

Table AII.
Year of Country sample investigation
publication Author(s) period Variable(s) CSR-variable(s) Results

2012 Faisal, Tower and 24 countries mainly in Europe Assurance statement Sustainability The existence of an assurance statement is also
Rumin 125 companies Jurisdictional business system disclosure score positively related to the extent of CSR
2009 Board characteristics (independence) disclosure. Further, an association between CSR
disclosure and type of business jurisdiction can
be achieved. No association between board
independence and CSR disclosure
2012 Fernando and Sri Lanka Firm size (market capitalisation) Dummy variable Positive relationship between firm size and CSR
Pandey 232 listed companies Profitability (ROA and ROE) reporting. No relation between profitability and
2010 CSR disclosure
2012 Michelon and USA and Europe CEO duality CSR disclosure Positive association between community
Parbonetti 114 companies Board characteristics (CEO duality, score influentials and CSR disclosure. No influence of
2003 independence and influential members) CEO duality and board independence on CSR
Existence of CSR committee disclosure
2012 Prado-Lorenzo, Spain 99 non-financial firms Board characteristics (ratio of number of CSR disclosure Activist shareholder pressure has a
García-Sánchez and 2009 directors that represent active score contradictory effect on CSR disclosure
Gallego-Álvarez shareholders’ interests divided by the
directors on the board)
2012 Vitezić, Vuko and Croatia Profitability (ROA and ROE) Dummy variable Profitability (ROA and ROE) and firm size have
Mörec 42 companies Firm size (Balance sheet total) an influence of the possibility of publishing a
2002-2010 Ownership structure (foreign ownership) CSR report
2011 Gamerschlag, Möller Germany Media visibility (number of hits in Dummy variable Although media visibility and ownership
and Verbeeten 130 companies Handelsblatt newspaper ranking) structure is positively associated, profitability
2005-2008 Profitability (return on invested capital does not affect CSR disclosure. Firm size also
(ROIC)) affects CSR disclosure
Ownership structure (free float)
Stakeholder (US stakeholder)
(continued)
Year of Country sample investigation
publication Author(s) period Variable(s) CSR-variable(s) Results

2011 Michelon Mainly USA and Europe Existence of a sustainability committee CSR disclosure Positive relationship between CSR disclosure
114 companies Profitability (ROE) score and the existence of a sustainability committee
2003 Financial performance (stock price as well as media visibility. No significant
return) relation between CSR disclosure and financial
Media visibility performance. Further, ROE and stock price
Stakeholder engagement return are not significant
2011 Rouf Bangladesh Board independence Total social Positive effect of board independence and firm
93 companies Firm size (balance sheet total and total responsibility size measured by balance sheet total in CSR
2007 sales) disclosure score reporting. No effect of firm size measured by
total sales on CSR disclosure
2010 Dilling 25 countries (mainly Europe, Size (market capitalisation, operating and Dummy variable The variables were not associated with G3
North America and Australia) geographic segments and employee reporting
124 companies numbers)
2007 Profitability (profit margin
Firm growth (five-year growth sales)
Capital structure
Corporate governance [Audit committee
and board of directors (number of
members and meetings), existence of
sustainability and governance
committee]
2010 Khan Malaysia Corporate governance (independence, CSR reporting Positive effect of board independence and
30 banks gender) index foreign shareholders on CSR reporting. No
2007-2008 Firm size (balance sheet total) influence of gender to CSR disclosure. Firm size
Profitability (ROE) and profitability are also positive related to CSR
Foreign ownership reporting
2010 Khasharmeh and 12 countries of the Gulf Firm size (balance sheet total) CSR Disclosure Firm size is positively related to CSR disclosure.
Suwaidan Cooperation Council Profitability (earnings per share) Score Profitability, capital structure and ownership
60 manufacturing companies Capital structure (debt ratio) structure do not show an affiliation to CSR
2006 Ownership structure (state ownership) reporting
(continued)

Table AII.
187
reporting
sustainability
Drivers of
 7,2

188
SAMPJ

Table AII.
Year of Country sample investigation
publication Author(s) period Variable(s) CSR-variable(s) Results

2010 Morhardt Mainly USA 750 companies Firm size (revenue) CSR disclosure CSR disclosure is at least partially influenced by
2008 score (based on firm size
Pacific
sustainability
index)
2009 Prado-Lorenzo, Spain Board independence CSR disclosure The three independent variables do not affect
Gallego-Alvarez and 99 nonfinancial companies Ownership (presence of financial index CSR disclosure. Positive effect of the presence of
Garcia-Sanchez institutions in the firms ownership the dominant shareholders on the adoption of
structure and presence of a physical the GRI format
person that exercises control)
2009 Said, Zainuddin and Malaysia Board characteristics (independence and CSR disclosure Positive effect of government ownership,
Haron 150 companies CEO duality) index ownership concentration and existence of an
2006 Ownership structure [government and audit committee on CSR disclosure. No effect of
foreign ownership and concentration (10 board independence, CEO duality or foreign
largest stakeholders)] ownership in CSR reporting
Existence of an audit committee
2008 Christopher and Australia Ownership structure (% of ordinary CSR disclosure Ownership dispersion, firm leverage and firm
Filipovic 450 companies shares which were held by other than the score (according size are significantly and positively related to
2004 top 20 shareholders) to GRI) CSR disclosure. BFA and profitability are
Firm leverage (debt to balance sheet positively associated with CSR disclosure
total)
Big Four audit (BFA)
Firm size (market capitalisation)
Profitability (earnings before interest and
taxes margin)
2008 Kent and Monem Australia Media visibility (number of adverse Dummy variable Positive effect of media visibility, number of
72 companies publicity articles) meetings of the audit committee, existence of a
2003 Audit committee characteristics sustainability committee on CSR reporting
(independent members and number of
meetings and member in committee)
Existence of sustainability committee
Board characteristics (independence of
board members, CEO model and number
of meetings and member in board)
(continued)
Year of Country sample investigation
publication Author(s) period Variable(s) CSR-variable(s) Results

2008 Lim, Talha, Malaysia Corporate governance (CEO duality) CSR disclosure State ownership is positively and significantly
Mohamed and 743 non-financial companies Ownership structure (state ownership) score related to CSR reporting. Corporate governance
Sallehhuddin 2003 is negatively related to CSR disclosure
2007 Ghazali Malaysia Ownership structure [concentration Positive effect of firm size and government
87 companies (shares held by ten largest shareholders), ownership on CSR reporting. No influence of
2001 government ownership] profitability an ownership concentration on CSR
Firm size (market capitalisation) disclosure
Profitability (profit margin)
2007 Ho and Taylor USA and Japan Firm size (market value of equity) CSR disclosure Firm size is positively and significantly related
100 companies (50 each Firm leverage (ratio of total debt to total index to CSR disclosure. Profitability and liquidity are
country) equity) negatively and significantly related to CSR
2003 Profitability (ROA) disclosure. Firm leverage is also negative, but
Liquidity (ratio of current assets to not significant
current liabilities)

Table AII.
189
reporting
sustainability
Drivers of