Date post: | 07-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | hong-ching |
View: | 57 times |
Download: | 2 times |
A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF THE
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS OF
BRAZILIAN LISTED COMPANIES
Hong Y Ching, Fábio Gerab and
Christiane Pereira
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Research Problem
Are the readers in general and investors paying
attention to the evolution of the quality of the
sustainability reports throughout the years and not
only in a particular year?
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Assess the quality and completeness of sustainability
reports
Objective
Period: temporal analysis for the period of 2008-2012
Sample: Brazilian companies listed at ISE (145 companies´reports)
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Types of report 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Sustainability Reports 14 15 16 15 12 72
Annual report and
Sustainability 10 9 12 16 13 60
Integrated Reporting 0 0 0 3 5 8
Annual Report 1 0 0 0 0 1
Social Responsibility
Report 0 1 1 1 1 4
TOTAL 25 25 29 35 31 145
Reports with External
Assurance 13 14 15 24 24 90
Reports following GRI
Guidelines 21 22 28 35 29 135
ISE Companies from 2008-2012
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Hypotheses of the study
H 1 - Information disclosed in Sustainability Reports from 2008 – 2012 has shown consistent improvement.
H 2 - Information disclosed of the economic dimension from 2008 until 2012 has shown consistent improvement.
H 3 - Information disclosed of the environmental dimension from 2008 until 2012 has shown consistent improvement
H 4 - Information disclosed of the social dimension from 2008 until 2012 has shown consistent improvement
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
What is in it for you?
Understand that the process of reporting may
generate value both for share and stakeholders2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Why are companies writing these reports?
Because of Stakeholder and Legitimacy Theories
- Generate trust and value for their stakeholders
- Use as a legitimizing tool for the society
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Motivations for this study
•Adoption of socially responsible practices are perceived as
competitive advantages to create value in long term
•Investors are paying more attention
•Organizations dedicated to sustainability reporting
•Increase of studies in this field
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Literature Review
•Huang and Wang (2010) analysed 116 Chinese firms –
quality of reports has polarized, they need improvement
•Vurro and Perrini (2011) stated that level of disclosure does
not improve firm ability to manage stakeholders
•For Araya et al (2014) disclosing information would help to
reinforce stakeholders´trust.
•Kolk (2014) says there is no unequivocal way to distinguish
greenwash from realistic reporting
•Voluntary sustainability standards such as GRI and the
emergence of IR is a path of no return2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
There has been a mild turnover of companies in ISE list
Research Methodology
Year Experience Nth report
All Companies 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total
2008 25 0 0 0 0 25
2009 8 17 0 0 0 25
2010 5 7 17 0 0 29
2011 8 4 6 17 0 35
2012 0 8 3 4 16 31
Total 46 36 26 21 16 145
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Use of content analysis to search for specific corporate
information and reduce it into exclusive categories.
Use of GRI pre-defined categories for analyzing information
disclosed.
Each topic/information was assigned a score from 0 to 1
using the wording of the sustainability report in the following
way: no coverage (0); sketchy (0,25); systematic (0,5);
extensive (0,75) and integrated (1,0)
Research Methodology
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Empirical Analysis – Overall Score Results
Subset N Mean Median Std. Deviation Std Error
All Companies 145 0,497 0,519 0,200 0,017
2008 25 0,418 0,418 0,215 0,043
2009 25 0,460 0,463 0,211 0,043
2010 29 0,472 0,430 0,162 0,030
2011 35 0,535 0,572 0,203 0,034
2012 31 0,573 0,630 0,182 0,033
Economic 145 0,551 0,542 0,224 0,019
Environment 145 0,460 0,457 0,256 0,019
Social 145 0,495 0,526 0,225 0,020
Financials 25 0,494 0,498 0,182 0,036
Infrastructure 67 0,540 0,564 0,161 0,020
Industrial 45 0,442 0,379 0,240 0,036
Services 8 0,463 0,479 0,248 0,088
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Post-hoc test for Kruskal among the Years for
the Overall Score
This difference evidences that 2012 reports present overall score
greater than 2008.
So, H1 is accepted – information disclosed has shown improvement
Year
N Mean Rank
Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 22008 25 57,68 57,68
2009 25 64,64 64,64 64,64
2010 29 67,72 67,72 67,72
2011 35 80,34 80,34 80,34
2012 31 88,74
88,74
Total 145
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Empirical Dimension Analysis
Moving to hypotheses H2 to H4, correlations between the
report year and each dimension of TBL are significant for
economic and social dimensions.
So H2 and H4 were accepted – consistent improvement from
2008-2012
This improvement was not clear for Environment –
H3 was rejected
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Conclusion
Information disclosed in the reports
has shown consistent improvement
as well as for economic and social
dimensions
Companies are gaining experience
as years go by
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver
Conclusion
Final message:
They should use the reporting to build a meaningful
relationship with stakeholders as well as a legitimizing tool
for the Society.
2015 Academy of Management ConferenceAugust 7-11Vancouver