IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/medarp/medar-05-2021-1297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The disclosure of sustainable development goals (SDGs) by the top 50 Australian companies: substantive or symbolic legitimation?

Author

Listed:
  • Sumit Lodhia
  • Amanpreet Kaur
  • Sanjaya Chinthana Kuruppu

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to explore how the top 50 Australian companies are disclosing their commitment to addressing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) formulated by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. By investigating the nature and substantiveness of SDG reporting, this study provides exploratory evidence on how companies are taking the initial steps to addressing the SDGs. Design/methodology/approach - A content analysis of SDG disclosures by the top 50 Australian companies was undertaken. This content analysis was guided by the KPMG (2018) SDG disclosure framework. Legitimacy theory was used to interpret the findings, establishing whether such disclosure was substantive or symbolic. Findings - This study reports a moderate level of SDG disclosure among Australian companies. The top five most critical SDGs in Australian context are climate action, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, responsible consumption and production and industry, innovation and infrastructure. The findings also highlight that while the focus of Australian companies is on understanding and prioritizing SDGs, the measurement of SDGs performance needs to increase. Research limitations/implications - This study adds to limited literature on the corporate responses to SDGs by establishing how companies, especially in Australia, are addressing these goals through changes to their reporting systems, thereby communicating their strategic intent in relation to addressing these goals. A focus on symbolic legitimation through SDG disclosure by the Australian companies in this study reaffirms the findings of similar studies and suggests a need for more substantive SDG management and disclosure if these goals are to be adequately addressed by the corporate sector. Practical implications - The findings of this study provide insights into the current practices and future prospects of corporate responses to SDGs. Policy implications could arise in relation to possible approaches for disclosing social and environmental information and the paper argues for a potential need for regulation of non-financial reporting. Originality/value - This study contributes to the limited understanding of the corporate response to an urgent sustainability call made by the UN by providing evidence on how Australian companies are embedding, measuring and reporting the SDGs. The research goes beyond a descriptive analysis of SDG disclosure and assesses whether such disclosure is substantive or symbolic.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumit Lodhia & Amanpreet Kaur & Sanjaya Chinthana Kuruppu, 2022. "The disclosure of sustainable development goals (SDGs) by the top 50 Australian companies: substantive or symbolic legitimation?," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(6), pages 1578-1605, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:medarp:medar-05-2021-1297
    DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:medarp:medar-05-2021-1297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.