The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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