CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 238Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingGovernance, Compliance, and SustainabilityGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tamed Transparency: How Information Disclosure under the Global Reporting Initiative Fails to Empower

Open access
Dingwerth, Klaus, Eichinger, Margot·2010·Global Environmental Politics
DOI 10.1162/glep_a_00015
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this contribution, we explore the tensions that seem inherent in the claim that transparency policies “empower” the users of disclosed information vis-àvis those who are asked to provide the information. Since these tensions are particularly relevant in relation to voluntary disclosure, our analysis focuses on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as the world's leading voluntary corporate non-financial reporting scheme. Corporate sustainability reporting is often hailed as a powerful instrument to improve the environmental performance of business and to empower societal groups, including consumers, in their relations with the corporate world. Yet, our analysis illustrates that the relationship between transparency and empowerment is conflictual at all four levels of activity examined in this article: in the rhetoric and policies of the GRI as well as in the actual reporting practice and in the activities of intermediaries in response to the organization's disclosure standard.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/glep_a_00015

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. CERES, 1997, Brown and de Jong, 2008, 10

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 238

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dingwerth, K., & Eichinger, M.
Affiliations
University of Bremen (DE)
ORCID
Dingwerth, Klaus
Venue
Global Environmental Politics
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2010-08
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
74-96
ISSN
  • 1526-3800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-0091
DOI
10.1162/glep_a_00015
OpenAlex
W2029292915
Cited by
234
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
26.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Environmental Politics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Governance, Compliance, and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Global trade, sustainability, and social impact
Keywords
Global Reporting Initiative, corporate sustainability reporting, voluntary disclosure, transparency, empowerment, non-financial reporting, stakeholder relations

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