Sustainability Reporting and Metrics: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Disclosure Practices
Abstract
This paper delves into the realm of sustainability reporting and metrics, with a specific focus on assessing the effectiveness of corporate sustainability initiatives and disclosure practices. In the contemporary business landscape, sustainability has emerged as a critical consideration for organizations, driven by increasing societal and stakeholder expectations. This study investigates the mechanisms through which companies report their sustainability efforts, the metrics used to evaluate their performance, and the impact of such practices on stakeholders, including investors, consumers, and society at large.
The research commences by elucidating the significance of sustainability reporting as a means for organizations to communicate their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) efforts transparently. It underscores how sustainability reporting has evolved from a mere compliance requirement to a strategic tool for enhancing corporate reputation and performance. The paper also outlines the various global reporting frameworks and standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), which guide organizations in disclosing their sustainability metrics.
Through a comprehensive analysis of case studies, empirical data, and theoretical discussions, the study scrutinizes the effectiveness of corporate sustainability initiatives. It assesses the extent to which sustainability reporting influences organizational behavior, shapes stakeholder perceptions, and impacts financial and non-financial performance. Additionally, the paper examines the role of sustainability metrics in facilitating benchmarking, goal-setting, and accountability within organizations.
Furthermore, the study explores the implications of sustainability reporting on various stakeholders, including investors seeking sustainable investments, consumers making informed purchasing decisions, and regulatory bodies encouraging responsible business practices. It also investigates the challenges and criticisms associated with sustainability reporting, such as greenwashing and the need for standardized metrics.
In conclusion, this paper argues that sustainability reporting and metrics play a pivotal role in advancing corporate sustainability initiatives, fostering transparency, and aligning organizations with ESG goals. It calls for continued research into the evolving landscape of sustainability reporting and the development of robust metrics that can assess the holistic impact of corporate sustainability practices.
Share and Cite
Article Metrics
References
- Adams, C. A., & Larrinaga-González, C. (2007). Engaging with organizations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 333-355.
- Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J. L., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24(2), 65-71.
- Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). GRI Standards: The Global Standards for Sustainability Reporting. GRI.
- KPMG International. (2017). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. KPMG.
- Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). A study of the evolution of the field of sustainability reporting and its implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2-3), 99-107.
- Mio, C., & Venturelli, A. (2016). Sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement: Italian evidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(5), 295-309.
- Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2006). Corporate sustainability. Social and Environmental Accounting, 26(1-2), 1-6.
- Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). (2018). SASB Standards. SASB.
- Tschopp, D., & Nastanski, M. (2019). Evaluating the success of sustainability reporting: a focus on GRI reporting in the USA. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1249-1263.