Cited by 429Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFinancial Reporting and XBRL

The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective

Diouf, Dominique, Boiral, Olivier·2017·Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to analyze the perceptions of stakeholders – more specifically, socially responsible investment (SRI) practitioners – of the quality of sustainability reports using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is based on 33 semi-structured interviews carried out with different stakeholders and experts (e.g. consultants, fund managers, analysts, consultants) in the field of SRI in Canada. Findings: The perceptions of SRI practitioners shed more light on the elastic and uncertain application of the GRI principles in determining the quality of sustainability reports. Their perceptions tend to support the argument that sustainability reports reflect the impression management strategies used by companies to highlight the positive aspects of their sustainability performance and to obfuscate negative outcomes. Originality/value: First, undertake empirical research on stakeholders’ perceptions – which have been largely overlooked – of the quality of sustainability reports. Second, shed new light on the impression management strategies used in sustainability reporting. Third, show the reflexivity and the degree of skepticism of practitioners with regard to the reliability of information on sustainability performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/aaaj-04-2015-2044

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Firms may opt to implement CSR standards in a more "symbolic" way to legitimize corporate actions, selectively disclosing positive CSR activities, without intending to materially adjust the underlying real activities.

    “Firms may opt to implement CSR standards in a more “symbolic” way to legitimize corporate actions, selectively disclosing positive CSR activities, without intending to materially adjust the underlying real activities (e.g., O’Sullivan and O’Dwyer 2009; Marquis et al. 2016; Diouf and Boiral 2017).”

    From Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review (2021) · cites this paper as Diouf and Boiral 2017

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 133 · Cited by 429

Authors
Diouf, D., & Boiral, O.
Affiliations
Université Laval (CA)
Venue
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2017-03-20
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
643-667
ISSN
0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2585384096
Cited by
429
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 4
FWCI
54.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Corpus Université Laval (Université Laval) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Financial Reporting and XBRL
Keywords
sustainability reports, impression management, Global Reporting Initiative, socially responsible investment, stakeholder perspectives, sustainability reporting quality, reflexivity, skepticism, corporate sustainability performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review